![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The controversy of this article stems from the fact that the languages discussed are overwhelmingly similar, with identical complex grammar and tiny variations in vocabulary. The article is useful in some parts, however it appears to have premeditated goal to establish linguistic independence of new ex-Yugoslav countries.
The main sources in the text are overwhelmingly of Croatian origin. Perhaps it would be best if the article as a whole were marked with a NPOV tag until sources from Serbian (and other, e.g. Bosniak) linguists were added? --Acachinero
It is clear that merged into one country people were pushed to overcome language differences, which is not a necessarily bad thing. Also truth is that modern inhabitant of Zagreb and his equivalent from Belgrade use languages that are incredibly same. What is essential is that introduction of this article doesn't present 1850's Vienna agreement that was actual beginning of the Serbo-Croatian language and that has nothing to do with the country of Yugoslavia. Living in one country or five hundred, south Slavs would profit from common standard language that they are so much afraid off. Mladen Panic
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.133.15 ( talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't move this page to "Differences in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" or something similar. There are reasons why it is named as it is. Nikola 06:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't have overly strong feelings about this, so I won't change it yet; but I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Duja 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I as a native speaker of the Serbo-Croatian language, must proclaim that this is a load of horse excrement because the examples shown in the article are CONTRA-INDICATIVE; the person who wrote it should at least check into basic logic rules because, if you say that something IS then there can be no EXCEPTION. Obviously this was written by somebody who is only desperate to make a distinction between the languages and not by somebody who is actually academicaly competent to give their opinion. Sorry, but this is no cigare... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.90.251 ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole page is a joke, I am not surprised that Shallot wrote most of it... oh brother... I'll deal with it later. -- Igor 10:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
At the risk of opening a can of worms, would it be worth making a comment on the political motivation of differentiation?
This page really is a joke. Wow. Unbelievable!
This page is a joke - if you lived in the four different YU countries as I have, please contact me - if not, go take care of your cat and your wife and children because you have no idea about these languages.
Slusaj majstore, ja sam lingvista i bavim se ovim jezicima, nemoj da dajes ovakve podatke narodu jer ce pogresno da shvate citav sektor. Dovoljno problema imamo sa time sto vandali pale ambasade i prave picvajz po ulicama, nemoj da dodajes vatru na ulje, leba ti. I nemoj da se ljutis, landsman sam, postujem sto pokusavas da objasnis situaciju, ali ipak dozvoli da neko ko ima akademsko zaledje objasni sta se desava. Pozdrav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.90.251 ( talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this page, i adopted from Croatian to pretty good Bosnian during just three months: I started saying organizovati and to use da-constructions, but realizovati still sounds somewhat alien.
Another thing about vocabulary: in my understanding which i built up speaking with people mostly in Osijek and Sarajevo and reading Croatian, some Serbian and little Bosnian, liciti means to look like predominantly in a transferred sense (to lici na njega) while I thought the word sliciti as in to be similar to be universal (slici na brata). And I know slikati or more precisely crtati rather thant liciti for to paint.
And I think it can be said that words like dzada or sargarepa are regionalisms and not actually used by everybody who consideres his/her language as Serbian. And the difference stol/sto is actually more morphology than vocabulary.
More general to morphology: There are certainly missing forms like porez/poreza, minuta/minut, osnova/osnov. As is the h/v stuff (suh/suv, kuhati/kuvati), and the endings -telj/-lac. Jakob Stevo 16:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
So I will Jakob Stevo 13:15, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
All three languages can form verb sub-phrases in two different ways, with use of infinitive, or with use of the helper word "da" (which could be translated to English as "to"; note that "da" also means "yes").
The sentence "I want to do that" could be translated with any of
"Hoću to da uradim"
"Hoću to uraditi"
Or "Will you do that?", which can be translated with both
"Da li ćeš to da uradiš?"
"Da li ćeš to uraditi?"
In most of Serbia and Bosnia, the first method is preferred in the vernacular, but in written language, the second method is frequently used to mean "will", while the first is used to mean "want to".
I think this part needs rewriting, for several factual errors and/or misguidances to an English-speaker. First, I'd rather call "da" a conjunction in this case rather than "helper word".
Second, the construct is always "da"+present tense.
Third, I'd rather translate "da" in this context as "that" rather than "to": I'd translate "Hoću to da uradim" to English literally as "I want that I do that".
Fourth, since the Serbian distinction of "ću da uradim" vs. "ću uraditi" is similar to English will vs. shall so the meaning is not obvious. I'd replace the above "will" with "shall" (I shall do it is AFAIK still perfectly fine English, although shall disappears esp. from Am.En., but it better disambiguates the translation).
Then, few words could also be spared on related construction of future tense :
"Uradit ću to" (Croatian)
"Uradiću to" (Serbian)
"Ja ću to uraditi" (Both, "I shall do that")
"Ja ću to da uradim" (Serbian, "I will/want to do that". Probably occurs in colloquial Cr. although I'd guess It would be treated as "Serbism" in official circles)
Comments? [Sorry, forgot the sig, newbie. Duja 12:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)]
I've edited the paragraph in question, trying to take into account your recent remarks. Feel free to comment/praise/vomit on it. Duja 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Reflaction is a word in English. From the context, I think "transformation over time" is what is meant. What is the correct word here? Key45 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Serbain - 'zejtin' for oil, seems to be semetic, from the semetic word for 'olives', present in arabic dialect, hebrew, aramiac. --80.178.230.241
In the Vocabulary section, why is Passport - pasoš, putovnica, pasoš in the But section? What makes it different from the "spinach", "factory", or "rice" examples? - Key45 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- still wondering Key45 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First: "Bosnian language" is nonexestent! It's either spoken Ijekavian Serbian, or Croatian. For the language to exist, you need literature, books writen on that language, and you need some difference to the existing language. You can erase everything considering croatian language, because I see they are compleetly changing their language structure, and words, and nobody has time to update the page every time they decide to change something. Now there is also question about existance of the new language. Where is the literature writen on croatian. After the point they say the language strucure is reached the stabile point, and they rewrite most of the books on their languagem, only then it deserves to be called a language
What about those distinct languages, such as North and South American native languages, which do not have literature, books written on the language (apart from Anthropological ones)? I agree that all 3 languages are remarkably similar (and I was raised to think that they are the same language). Difference is something like that between French French (fr_FR), Belgian French (fr_BE) and Canadian French (fr_CA), or English (en_GB, en_IE, en_US). - 3 June 2005 14:36 GMT
I recently reverted a semi-anonymous change that conflicts with my experiences - can someone else confirm or deny it? -- Joy [shallot] 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how correct example of studentkinja and studentica? It seems to me that the usage of the Prva (first) Palatelizacija was not applied to the word studentkinja. Prva Palatelizacija is the change of consonants k, g, h to c, z, s, which is the gramatical rule I was tought by my old high school teacher in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who herself was from Serbia (born and educated there). Therefore, rather than studentkinja being the Serbian word, I think it is gramatically incorrect word (although I might be wrong). - 3 June 2005 14:45 GMT
In Croatian the word for 'house' is dom, while in Serbian it is kuća. However, the Croatian word for 'houswife' is kućanica, while the Serbian one is domaćica. I was told that this was the argument originally used to name the language Serbo-Croat (although probably simplified). - 3 June 2005 14:55 GMT
Latin domus is dom, while latin casa (house) stands for kuća in Croatian. Or simply: to a caveman, the cave was his dom, not kuća :) . Kubura 07:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Excerpt from an English-language manual on getting around with Croatian (but applies to all three), got this in one of those forwarded mails:
The forwarded mail's subject indicates that this manual was used by SFOR/ KFOR, but I'd rather not trust that. The text is true, however. :) Perhaps we should also include a Infamous exceptions section in the article :) -- Joy [shallot] 19:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check out this image for a nice illustration of BCMSxyz swearing: the guy on the left is Slovene and says "tristo hudičev" (i.e. 300 devils), and you can try to interpret what the Serb on the right replies. Zocky 23:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph makes it seem that if you were to translate text from Croatian to Serbian, you'd get ridiculous differences. These differences actually came from nationalistic ambitions, where translators attempted to make the languages seem as different as possible. I added the truth behind it, my sources are people who actually live in the former Yugoslavia (not just one republic) and actually thought that Rane translation was a joke.
-- Hurricane Angel 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain, if possible, post an article, to explain how funny is the "translation"? And for your information, I DON'T KNOW Serbo-Croat or Serbian, or Montenegrin, or Croatian, or Bosnian, or whatever! So please translate the funny into English in the page please. Of course, the original translation between those languages MUST be shown. Thanks! -- Edmundkh 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Tisuća" was used in Croatian for "thousand" long before the war of independence. An example is the Croatian edition of the children's book "Tisuću zašto, tisuću zato" (there was a Serbian Cyrillic one too, IIRC) which was published by Vuk Karadžić publishing company, Belgrade, in 1986. So talking about "hiljada being replaced by tisuća" in 1991 is pure bull. Also, "srećan" has always been a Serbian (and maybe Bosnian) word so using it as an example of people (including the president) using a "normal" variant instead of the "recently-coined" one, as was suggested by this footnote, is misleading.
Finally, "drum" is never used in standard Croatian for "road". "Cesta" is used for "road" and "put" is mostly used for "lane" or "way". -- Elephantus 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
'Serbian officially uses both Latinic and Cyrillic whilst Croatian explicitly uses Latinic' is a total and utter fallacy. This is the institutionalized nonsense created by a blend of ignorance with wishful thinking. First of all, before people decide to call something 'official' they should find out what the term actually means, and its article in Wikipedia (Official Language) is one of the few where you had a well informed editor. It is simple and there is no debate. Article 8 of the Constitution of Serbia confirms that Cyrillic is the official alphabet of Serbian. Latinic is only used in a manner according to law alongside the usage of any foreign languages for official purposes. None of this is known to happen. In Croatia, Article 12 is a mirror reflection of Article 8 in Serbia, stating that Latinic is the official alphabet with Cyrillic only accepted in accordance with law parallel to foreign languages. Latinic is popular in Serbia and among Serbs for private reasons. They publish books, pop and folk music album sleeves, newspapers, leaflets, brochures, restaurant menus and they write postcards in the Latinic script. This does not make it official and being official in the first place would not be an excuse to use it anyhow. The only places where the official alphabet is used is on constitutional documents, such as the Republic of Serbia, federal Parliament Building: on the tablet leading to the entrance, and other political buildings. The word 'Policija' on Police jackets. Since 2002, Policija was written in Latinic on police cars around Serbia whilst still on Cyrillic on their shirts. There is a reason but only those who observe can spot it. Serbia and Montenegro, and its predecessor Yugoslavia, operated the joint language to represent both republics on the ashes of the old Serbo Croat. This usually meant the literary language of Serbia with its vocabulary and entire Ekavian system in the Latinic script of Croatia's literary language, a phenomenon never too widely accepted but dating back to 1914. The new Police Cars, usually Puegeot 307 or Mercedes 190, with Policija-Latinic all contain the tricolor of the 1992 Yugoslavian flag with White running in the middle, therefore the cars have been issued by the Federal Police and not the Serbian Police. Yes there is a Federal Police division with powers over both republics' police. The whole reason that an official script even exists is that there may be a source of confusion in the first place, usually because a single language has been written in two or more alphabets. To have two official alphabets is a debasement of why an 'official' one is even needed, better to allow people to do what they want and continue a life of linguistic anarchy. Either way, any arguements accepting Latinic as official in Serbia should also support their claim by arguing that Cyrillic is equally official in Croatia, and this, i doubt they will do. Ragusan 5 November 2005
Somebody appears to have switched the item back the original as in the source. Well it is simple, the source was and is erroneous. I maintain that in the Republic of Serbia, only Cyrillic is official. Where Latinic is used, one may write in Middle English in the Persian script, won't make it official norm a form of Serbian. The constitutional documents are all written in Cyrillic. The only way that it is possible for a single language to have two official alphabets is when the speech community is split into two and are represented by a seperate script for traditional reasons. Latinic making its way into Serbia and staying is a legacy of the Serbo Croat. Before that, there was NO Serb who used Latinic anywhere. Even when Vuk Karadžić introduced the 'j' to replace the short-i, it was met with dissatisfaction from inhabitants of the then-Serbian country, accusing him of Croatianizing the language. There are those who argue that Latinic is official because of the non-Serb nationals living all over Serbia, mainly Vojvodina. This is illogical, therefore impossible: If Albanian, Hungarian and Romanian all employ the Latinic script for their modern languages, the concept of rescripting Serbian into Latinic is neither here nor there. The task of learning a second language in the first place involves adapting to the norms of the speech community you are taking an interest in, whether it be for private interest, for professional reasons or simply because it is the national language of the country you live in but you are not ethnicly a national of it. There can be no such thing as 'a Cyrillic script for the serbs, but the Latinic script in official usage for Hungarians'. Point Number 1: if the government are to regard the Hungarians, they will allow them to use their OWN language for official purposes. Point Number 2: All languages to use an alphabet used for another language, have their own orthography and that has to be learned first. Even then, they are still writing a foreign language in a form of alphabet devized by primary members of the speech community. If there are any further arguments stating that non-Serb nationals may use either alphabet because they are both present and official then that begs the original question, why the Latinic alphabet official? The argument stating that 'it is for foreigners' would now be dead, because it is there to serve your purposes, not theirs. Israelis do not write their Hebrew script in Arabic to appease the Palestinians and the Greeks certainly don't write their language in the Latnic script to make it easier to learn for the Turks. Ragusan 6 November 2005.
There is a load of garbage in the Phonemes section too. Quite a few, but I will focus on just one. Parts of Croatia where they don't so much have a Č sound, but a Ć sound, and often something inbetween. There is no existing sound inbetween the two. In cannot even exist. The problem is that in the Serbo Croat speaking domains, nobody has ever truely understood the purpose of the letters ć and đ. They are not softer versions of Č and DŽ. What happens nowadays is that the so-called softer sounds are pronounced as anybody else would pronounce the normal CH and Dzh sounds, 'noć' like English 'Notch' and when pronouncing 'Čakovec', they do so with the tip of the tongue further back towards the middle of the ridge, applying more pressure to give it a harsher effect. That is pointless and was never the purpose of the sounds, but because of everyones ownership of language, this habit has fossilized into a rule. Since the two letters in both cases still exist and the languages of Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian would still strongly recommend using one lexeme per phoneme, I must insist that the importance of the letters should be stressed and explained properly:
Subsection discussing Croatian neologisms has to be there - it is vital to explain to a wider audience what is going on there. Use of jokes is also valid, and I dont see how you can atempt to portray Serbian version of the language as awkward (by a artificial sentence containing 5 'da', which is really just a derogating joke circularing in croatia - and note that this was not admitted, but perfidly veiled as how a sentence "typically" sounds), while removing jokes (which perfectly illustrate the issue) in the neo-croatian section (and which are clearly marked as jokes). croatian perfidry and hypocrisy will not stand here!! Suvarijeka 12:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
i have corrected it, but you keep reverting it, together with all other material a top of joke/neologism page. it is undeniable that croatian television and media forces some new words to croatian publec - btw croatian tv is widely acessible in serbia through cable tv (which is widespread). do you have any valid reason not to include disucssion of such neologisms, and very illustrative jokes, that are part of folclore connected with newly established languages? politics of new language is much part of this article as anything else is. if you think some of the information is incorrect, you may correct it but it is wrong to exclude valid material just because it doesnt fit in your nationalist agenda. it is against wikipedia policy to do so! Suvarijeka 02:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
For instance, you might help distinguishing real words from the jokes/parodies. For instance, it turned out that words such as 'zrakomlat' or 'krugovalna postaja' are in fact used in Croatia (even if infrequently - it is not surprising that not all attempts by nationalist driven neo-Croatian language drive was not completely successful, after all, people are not as easily influenced as politicians sometimes assume). It is true that some of the neo-Croatian language consists of once obscure (and now ressurected) words - I have now emphasized this point in the article, but it is undeniable that there are neologisms and that they are popularized.
Even if you do not want parodies to be included (and as I said, sometimes it is difficult to tell parody from a real word; the parodies can give YOU (a Croatian speaker) idea how the other more legitimate words sound to the rest of the Serbo-croatian speakers; they are very illustrating and should be included as much as comment about Rane is, i.e. it gives a wider context of the language war in Croatia)), even then there are real examples (marked as R) of neologisms used instead of international words, obscure words now in more frequent use etc. To simply revert all my changes is close to vandalism, and is certainly an attempt to exclude some of the less flattering sides of the Croatian drive to have their own distinct language. If people across ex-Yu laugh at you (and they are, not only Serbs laugh at such misguided attempts btw), there must be some reason for it. The fact that they do laugh has a place on this page, IMO. Suvarijeka 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone from Croatia please confirm or deny the usage of ko in Croatian I wrote? Google search for "onaj tko" [2] versus "onaj ko" [3] contradicts the info I entered in the article, and "Taj tko" [4] (which sounds horrible to my ears) versus "Taj ko" [5] is indecisive. Duja 11:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Standard Croatian knows no "ko" instead of "tko". Still, in some Croatian dialects you'll find use of " 'ko " (note: the apostroph!). In such situations in Croatian you feel that there was a dropped "sound", while in serb. sounds more "harder", like... like there was no "t" originally in "ko". Kubura 10:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Nikola wrote: AFAIK, ju is the only correct in Serbian too, but is most oftenly incorrectly used.
See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije Hope, many of you will contribute! :) -- Neoneo13 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No closing down Serbo-Croat Wikipedia!! -- Edmundkh 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the German version of the article, and noticed a lot of errors concerning compared words. Some words which are used as synonyms are given as different between Serbian and Croatian, for example, stranka/partija or rezati/seći. Some words which are different in Ekavian and Ijekavian are given as different in Croatian/Bosnian and Serbian, creating impression that Ijekavian forms are only Bosnian. Some words are flat out wrong such as komadić/komadić, parče, where komadić and parče mean two different things, and osnova/osnov. If someone here knows German, please correct this. Nikola 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the word for president in Serbian? In this article it shows it as "predsjednik", but the official government websites of Serbia show it as "predsednik" ... minus the j. For example [6] and [7]. Even the Serbian wikipedia has it as "predsednik", see here. -- 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Kubura wrote:
Kubura, you may have a point regarding uticati, proliv. I'm not sure where the difference stems from though; they might be "pseudo-ijekavisms" indeed. However, they don't look like Greek loans -- the roots tek- and lev- seem Slavic. My guess is that there perhaps was not an ě. However, you left in the subsequent sentence, which was "orphaned"; I commented it out as well until we settle this. (Btw, it's also abdomen in Serbian, but I get your point. Cf. Betlehem vs. Vitlejem).
As for syllabic "l", it's a red herring. L is not syllabic in standard language, period. It's limited to dialectal usage in Torlakian dialect and to Czech toponyms. Duja 16:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
==Syllabic l, pseudo-eta etc.==
This is also on Duja's talk page.
1.Of course these words are not of Greek origin, but with the development of language, they are felt as "ita". Similar thing happened in Croatian language, where some "e" in some words began to be felt as "yat", e.g. in "susjed/susid".
2.About "l", sorry for wrong expression, I wanted to note the case of Croatian "sokol, vol, stol" - Serbian "soko, vo, sto". Do you get me now? That's the "l" I wanted to tell you about. Kubura 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dijan wrote:
This last sentence should be taken out because in this context the word "što" does not mean "what". It means "which". So the sentence literally means: That which he said is a lie.
E is pronounced [ɛ] in Serbian and Bosnian and [e] in Croatian, and o is pronounced [ɔ] in Serbian and Bosnian and [o] in Croatian. That’s according to the languages’ respective Wikipedia articles, at least.
I removed this sentence from the bottom of the second paragraph of the first bullet-point in the "Notes on comprehension" section, because if you think about it, it's a rather politically-charged sentence and does not need to be there, since the paragraph discusses comprehension:
"This does not answer the primary question, and that is: does a Bosniak want to speak the same language as a Serb, or to call his language by the same name as a Serb?"
Also changed the first and second sentences of the second bullet-point.
Alan. -- 84.66.250.254 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I had to add {{ POV-section}} to the Mir's contribution; I understand he added it in a hurry though. Without questioning his good faith, the problem is that it presents one view of one linguist, which has its own conclusion (which, curiously, matches Mir's opinion); other linguists will certainly have different views. So, I agree the section is needed, but it should offer an overview of different views on the matter (plus, is it considered a copyvio as such?). Personally, I don't have a problem with this view on the things, but other views should be included as well (in my opinion, the matter comes down to whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, but it's just my view).
Also, I removed "linguistically strictly codified" from the opening sentence. "Strictly" is not accurate enough—while it might be true for Croatian, the other two are generally less picky about alleged "Croatisms" or "Serbisms". In other words, the decisions whether a phrase constitutes a valid "Serbian" and "Croatian" are often moot, especially from Serbian point of view. Duja 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Quot:"Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. (Cyrillic is in official use in Serbia and Republika Srpska. Latin script is also accepted as defined by laws, and used roughly by 1/3 of native speakers as the first script, although no official records exist).". Are you sure ? I know that the source is a bit hysterical & nationally exclusive (why would Serbian language be "endangered" or "Croatianized" by Latin script ?), but I also found the following data elsewhere: Serbs in Serbia proper write predominantly, 60-80%, in Latin script: http://govori.tripod.com/cirilica.htm Mir Harven 12:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not meddle into the article as I do not feel informed enough about the entire wikipedia system but I'd like to make some suggestions for this article to clarify two important things. First, there doesn't seem to be any mention at all about the pre-Yugoslavian period so an uninformed reader gets an impression that Serbo-Croatian has always existed and Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian are only newly created in the '90s which is completly contrary to the truth since the word srpskohrvatski was never even used before 19th century. It would be great to see a comparison of 15th or 16th century Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian literature languages. Yes, I'm aware of the word "standard" in the title but this is way too important to be dismissed on that grounds and (as far as I know) there is no better place to put it. Secondly, I think there should be a longer, 10-20 sentences long text written in all three languages as well as in English. These tables give a lot of examples but are of little practical meaning and along with the last paragraph can lead to a conclusion that there are no real differences. A longer text would leave it to any readers common sense to judge this, which is, IMO, probably the best option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.242.115 ( talk • contribs)
That's the stupidest thing written above-to compare the dialects from 15th or 16th century. It's a total nonsense considering that those 'languages' don't exist any more and are not spoken today. Why should you compare something that don't exist? That's Crazy!!! Those comparizons should be done somewhere else, where the history of the dialects of one language is discussed, not on this page! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2007
How many dialects are in everyday use in Germany besides the offical Hochdeutsch? Person from Hanover hardly understands Schwäbisch dialect from Baden-Württemberg. Austrians or Prussians wouldn't also understand much of a Platdeutsch. And does anyone even dream about saying that Niedersachsen is not German? No! And why not? No one is that stupid! For the same reason no one is trying to promote Australian, Canadian, American, Jamaican or South African Language.
Why promoting Bosnian then?
Bosnian language is pure fabrication for the political purposes. It was recognized by UN during the civil war in Bosnia, as a support to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. There were no true linguistic or any other scientific reasons for its recognition. All the reasons in favor of Bosnian language are deficient and politicaly motivated.
Bosnian languaage uses Latin alphabet in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cyrillic alphabet in the Republika Srpska. No, it doesn't! Bosnian language is not in use in Republika Srpska. Ask the locals. They are ethnic Serbs. What langugage do you think they speak?
Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. No, it doesn't. Serbo-Croatian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. Serbian language uses Cyrillic alphabet only. Serbian Cyrillic is unique and native to the Serbian language.
Differences between Serbian and Croatian are minor. They are even smaller than ones between German and Austrian. It is one and same language - Serbo-Croatian.
Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (also Croatian or Serbian, Serbian or Croatian) (srpskohrvatski or cрпскохрватски or hrvatskosrpski or hrvatski ili srpski or srpski ili hrvatski). It belongs to south Slavic group of languges, along with Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbocroatian language is based on Štokavian dialect and defined Ekavian (ekavski) and Iyekavian (ijekavski) pronunciations. It also has Kajkavian and Chakavian as its dialects.
For some political or any other purpose, someone can invent five or ten more languages on Balkans, but it wouldn't change a fact: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrians are speaking with one langugage: Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.198.140 ( talk • contribs)
BRAVO, YOU TOLD THE ENTIRE TRUTH! 'Croatian', 'Bosnian','Serbian' and now "Montenegrin', 'Sokac', 'Bunjevac' and soon probably 'Dalmatian' are just POLITICAL CREATIONS by some brainwashed nationalist who are temporary in position to do that, nothing else! Those all 'languages' are ONE language, and they differ between themselves less than the dialects in one language. All this craziness about having 'theirown, reagional language'is a total nonsense, a total crap which nobody serious in the scientific world takes for seirous. And very certainly everyone normal is LAUGHING to that load of rubbish! Lackily the ordinary people doesn't take it seriously either, they all know that they speak one language-SeboCroatian or Croato-Serbain. Greetings and Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2007
The terms Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. are also politicaly motivated names or shall we nationalistically or pannationalistically, so are many other languages or their names in the world. I am not a linguist, so I can not argue if the whole region speaks the same language, but I doubt it, because some dialects are hardly understable to others without study. However I do know that the Slovenian language artifically separated its Carniolic version from the Kajkavian dialect for nationalistical reasons (done by Kopitar) and that from a linguistic point of view the whole Štokavian dialect is considered as one language, but this does not mean that this language is Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian or any other of those (pan)nationalistic names. This language is multiethnical, but it will not be recognised as such anytime soon probably. However, there have been such discussions among the croatian linguists. Bye
Recent addition by User:83.131.71.79 (Mir?):
However, arguments along similar lines tend to be blurred due to the following reasons:
- there is no "purely linguistic level"
- speaking of the genetic level, no classification of languages pays much attention to this category. For instance, South and Eastern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian,..) belong, genetically, to the one category and Western Slavic languages (Polish, Czech, Lusatian,..) to another, without repercussions for the individuality and identity of particular languages
- speaking of the typological level, languages are classified according to the root grammar, ie. morphology and syntax. So, according to this criterion, Hindi and Urdu are one and the same language- which is not the dominant position among linguists today (see. Ausbausprache). In the case of Croatian and Serbian, two levels are confused: the language as a system and a language as a standard. Since Croatian as a system is based on three dialects and Serbian on one (with the peripheral Torlak dialect), these two languages cannot be considered typologically one language. But, Pranjković's argument can be refined: Croatian and Serbian (as well as Bosnian) standard languages are all based on the neoštokavian dialect, therefore share virtually the same elementary phonology, morphology and syntax (with a few minor differences). According to this view, Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian can be considered to be varieties of a single abstract language-the number of phonemes, declination and conjugation are the same. Opponents of this contention claim that this is unduly reductionist view on standard languages since it tries to describe a phenomenon of language resorting to the incomplete set of variables describing a standard language: theoretical linguistics description of a standard language does not include phonology, morphology and syntax only, but also phonetics, word-formation, semantics, lexicology and stylistics. According to this view, Pranjković's argument is valid (although not completely) until the level of standardology: at this level, it fails due to the flaw of reductionism.
While I'm not particularly against the views stated above, this looks like an original research. If this is a quote from some renowned linguist, it should be attributed; if not, it cannnot stay in the article. Wikipedia articles are not essays; we are not here to polemize with quoted experts, but to report their opinions. As stated, the addition tries to interpret the opinions and offer a third view; readers should draw their own conclusions. Duja 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/138/tekstovi/06.htm
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/477924/index.do
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/495867/index.do
My take: "Ivo Pranjković, kao kroatist poznog-srednjeg naraštaja (kao i nešto stariji Silić, ili mlađi Samardžija i još neki) ima "kompleks" jednoga od doajena hrvatske lingvistike Stjepana Babića. Babić je, uz Katičića i Brozovića, smatran glavnim hrvatskim jezikoslovnim auktoritetom koji je prekinuo s lingvističkom starudijom i utemeljio suvremenu kroatistiku, baziranu na strukturalizmu i drugim smjerovima modernoga jezikoslovlja. Primjer Pranjkovićevih kompleksa vidljiv je ovdje: http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vij209.nsf/AllWebDocs/prenja U cijeloj priči neki Ćorić i slični ne igraju praktički nikakovu ulogu. Ako se ide u motive Pranjkovićevih nerijetko protuslovnih izjava, a prati što je pisao (npr., njegova polemika sa zagovornicom hrvatskoga unitarizma Snježanom Kordić, izašlom u nekoliko brojeva časopisa "Književna republika"), razvidno je sljedeće:
a) Ivo je Pranjković stalno opterećen kompleksom jezikoslovaca starijega naraštaja (rođenih od 1920.-1930.), te njihovom dominacijom zbog čega nije primljen u HAZU
b) Pranjkovićeva je djelatnost u samostalnoj Hrvatskoj uglavnom u oprjeci spram svega što dolazi iz tih dominantnih krugova vitalnih staraca-napose u pravopisu, te je praktički "antiprotivan" u odnosu na sve njihove prijedloge oko jezičnoga normiranja. Ili-Pranjković je u više navrata izrazio pozitivno mišljenje (kasnije modificirano) o djelima Vladimira Anića, nekim radovima Josipa Silića i dr., a koja su dobila negativnu ocjenu zbog ustupaka jezičnom unitarizmu i "Novosadizmu".
c) što se tiče Srba i srpskih lingvista, Pranjković je imao (i ima, sudi li se po njegovim intervjuima) pozitivno mišljenje jedino o Ranku Bugarskom i, dijelom, Ivanu Klajnu. Dobro mišljenje o Pavlu Iviću je definitivno pokopano velikosrpskom bljezgarijom potonjega, a o ostalim srpskim jezikoslovcima se i nije izjašnjavao-osim o Čoriću, u ovom slučaju, a potaknut polemičkim prikazom rečenoga.
d) velik je dio Pranjkovićevih tekstova polemičke naravi, a ne znanstvene (što je i jedan od razloga što nije u HAZU-nema dovoljno radova), no u svojim je istupima i polemikama ipak dovoljno jasan, bar što se tiče statusa hrvatskoga (i srpskoga):
1) što je jedan jezik, a što dva ili tri ili četiri-za to lingvistika nema odgovor. To nije lingvistička tema
2) Pranjković, za razliku od drugih hrvatskih lingvista, stalno naglašava genetskolingvističko jedinstvo dijalekatske baze hrvatskog i srpskog (i bošnjačkog). Uz njega, to čini, tu i tamo, i Dalibor Brozović. Ostali lingvisti (Katičić, Silić,..) smatraju da je to nevažno, jer standard nije sustav, po Silićevim riječima, i za standardni je jezik nepotrebno naklapanje o narječju na kojem je temeljen, to prije što narječna baza čini samo jezgrenu gramatiku ili morfosintaksu, dok je lingvistički opis standarda, od fonetike do tvorbe, semantike i leksikona, ovisan o samom procesu standardizacije. Valja reći da dobar dio lingvista drži da su kriteriji genetske lingvistike slabi i nedostatni za opis jezika (i na strukturnoj, a kamoli na standardološkoj razini)-pa je u tom pogledu Pranjković usamljen.
3) hrvatski standardni jezik je samosvojan jezik koji ima početke u vernakularu 15. stoljeća, s početkom standardizacije u 18. stoljeću i dovršetkom u 19.
To je Pranjkovićevo mišljenje koje ponavlja ad nauseam, u svih ovih 15-20 godina, što se može vidjeti iz njegovih jezikoslovno polemičkih knjiga (Kronika hrvatskoga jezikoslovlja, Jezikoslovna sporenja,..). Tvrdnje o tom da nema kriterija koji bi odlučivao što je jezik, da su hrvatski i srpski temeljeni na istom narječju, te da su hrvatski i srpski standardni jezici različiti jezici, kao što su različiti hindi i urdu (Pranjkovićev primjer iz polemike s Kordićkom).
I to je sve. Ako tko želi vidjeti s kojim je tezama Pranjković polemizirao, može to iz sljedećih tekstova (nisu Pranjkovićevi): http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic_PDF4.pdf i http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic1_PDF.pdf Mir Harven 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbo-Croatian language, which was defined as the common and unified language of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, also followed suit and officially split into three languages, still fully mutually intelligible.
That paragraph is illogical, so the language, seeing widespread political transformation decided to divide itself? A better paragraph would be something like that after the division of Yugoslavia, all former nations begun calling their dialect of Serbo-Croat a separate language, or maybe that the languages formerly grouped under the Serbo-Croat umbrella term have gained separate recognition or something like that, not that a language split itself, whatever that is supposed to mean. + Hexagon1 ( t) 09:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
. I think the intention of the sentence is fairly clear (I think I wrote it), but on second look it is clumsily worded.
Duja
►
08:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
after the division of Yugoslavia, all former nations begun calling their dialect of Serbo-Croat a separate language. Completely wrong, Hexagon. Croats always called their language hrvatski, Serbs always called their language srpski. Despite political interventions. Always, before and during Yugoslavia. You have a bunch of literature about that.
The other case is with Bosnian Muslims (that later changed their name into "Bosniacs") and with the Montenegrins. The way they declared their language had other courses, but I leave them to tell their story.
Kubura
15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph is confusing:
Pronunciation and vocabulary differs among dialects spoken within Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia themselves. Each larger region has its own pronunciation and it is reasonably easy to guess where a speaker is from by their accent and/or vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary can be particularly different from the official standards.
This is one of the arguments for claiming it is all one and the same language: there are more differences within the territories of the official languages themselves than there are between the standards (all of which inherit from the standards established in Yugoslavian times, when Serbo-Croatian was the official language). This is not surprising, of course, for if the lines between the languages were drawn not politically but linguistically, then there would be no continuum at all. As Pavle Ivić explains, the continuous migration of Slavic populations during the five hundred years of Turkish rule has scattered the local dialects all around.
It looks like the author meant to argue that there is a dialect continuum across the three countries, but what he says is the opposite! FilipeS 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Olaf, please see the 221,000 GHits for forms of "srećan" (in Cyrillic, to stick only to Serbian results) and 30,900 for forms of "sretan" (which include many unrelated Macedonian results, as a bonus) before trying to impose your opinion on a language apparently foreign to you. Thanks. Duja ► 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of tvornica being used in Serbian [8]-- Hadžija 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
However, most words are well understood, or even occasionally used, in other languages; in most cases, common usage favors one variant while the other(s) are regarded as "imported", archaic, dialectal or simply, more rarely used.
Well, the main problem is that Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are one language (whatever one chooses to call it), whose dialects overlap between the supposed "languages", making an article about the differences between Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian difficult to write. All three have ijekavski in common for a start... -- Hadžija 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thread, бај д веј.-- Hadžija 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ser, Cro and Bos are one language...". Hadžija, don't spread your wishes here.
E.g., if you think that word like "tvornica", "mrkva", "ljestve" (!!??) were in use by Serbs, than why don't you try it this way: correct every Serb in speech when he/she says "fabrika", "šargarepa", "merdevine" and tell them that they're wrong, that they should say "tvornica, mrkva, ljestve". Tell them: "Ne kaže se merdevine već ljestve". And so on.
Kubura
15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We should re-formulate that blockquote "However, most words are well understood, or even occasionally used, in other languages; in most cases, common usage favors one variant while the other(s) are regarded as "imported", archaic, dialectal or simply, more rarely used."
"Common usage" regards other forms as "archaic, dialectal"??? Where? By whom?
Kubura
14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the part with the Google link - I'm not getting it. I give up.
But this part wasn't properly answered: Who considers one variant as "imported, archaic, dialectal"?
Kubura
17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
People, your boldness is appreciated, but arbitrary page moving is a Bad Thing. Please list the article in WP:RM if you want the article at a different title, and let the concensus develop. I don't have any particular preference for the title, but I don't want to fix the ton of double redirects screwed by someone else. Duja ► 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
People, we should consider a rename proposal soon. The title should be:
Differences between standard "Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian" (language names ordered alphabetically, added Montenegrin language).
The official page of Montenegrin government
[9] in English offers "mother tongue" page as "Montenegrin language" (see button named crnogorski). Not to mention the attitude of Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts. And
of Montenegrin P_E_N_ Centre.
Kubura
16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This was the language policy in former Yugoslavia.
See this link from the Croatian Institute of Language and Linguistics
Problemi jezične politike:
Zaključci radnog dogovora predstavnika centralnih komiteta SK Bosne i Hercegovine, Crne Gore,
Hrvatske i Srbije i pokrajinskih komiteta SK Kosova i Vojvodine o aktualnim problemima jezika i jezične politike na srpskohrvatskom/hrvatskosrpskom, hrvatskom ili srpskom govornom području [dvotjednik "Oko", 1986].
See the section 2. "... Negativne, društveno neprihvatljive pojave u jeziku, jezičnoj politici i jezičnom planiranju na srpskohrvatskom govornom području, koje se često ispoljavaju u vidu jezičnog nacionalizma..."
"...Stoga je potrebno... temeljito i svestrano razmotriti stanje i aktualne probleme jezika i jezične politike i iznaći najefikasnije forme djelovanja, međusobne suradnje i koordinacije aktivnosti organa i organizacija SKJ, SSRNJ, SSJ, SSOJ, državnih organa i organizacija i drugih organiziranih društvenih snaga u području nauke, javnog informiranja, izdavačke djelatnosti i odgojno-obrazovne djelatnosti.
Ta aktivnost mora se jasno određivati protiv separatističkih i unitarističkih tendencija u području jezika, a za afirmaciju bratstva i jedinstva i jezičnog zajedništva Crnogoraca, Hrvata, Muslimana, Srba i drugih, tj. za afirmaciju jezične politike koja uspostavlja sklad između nedvojbene jednosti srpskohrvatskog/hrvatskosrpskog, hrvatskog ili srpskog standardnog (književnog) jezika i njegove varijantne razudenosti, takvog jezičnog zajedništva koje ne ugrožava jedinstvo kulturnog života nijedne nacije i nijedne sociokulturne sredine, već ga, naprotiv, osigurava."
"...Negativne tendencije u području jezika posebno su došle do izraza u posljednje vrijeme tako da se može govoriti o eskalaciji jezičnog nacionalizma, koji se manifestira:
- u praktičnom razdvajanju našeg jezika na srpski i hrvatski (u nastavi na nekim stranim sveučilištima),
- u isto takvom razdvajanju jezika u međunarodnim dokumentacijskim klasifikacijama,
- u izdavanju rječnika, odnosno priručnika posebno za hrvatski, posebno za srpski (srpskohrvatski) jezik,
- u zlonamjernim i neistinitim prikazivanjima naše jezične situacije u pojedinim enciklopedijama, knjigama i studijama širom svijeta itd. ..."
Kubura
11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Montenegrins use words:
Momisan, Crna Gora, are you kidding???
Predominant use of Latin letters? Since when?
I had the opportunity to watch Montenegrin TV programme before and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but I've never heard (nor seen) that.
Kubura
18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Both "osoba" and "lice"? That's something completely new to me. In last 20 years, I haven't heard Montenegrins use "osoba" (with derivatives: osobno...). Kubura 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't use either one in colloquial speech, but both words are equally known and used somewhat in written language. As far as the derivates are concerned, only those of "lice" are used(e.g. Ličnost,lično...) Sideshow Bob 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Montenegrin is your mother tongue, who are we to question that?
Čovik uči dok je živ.
Still, those data surprised me. Personally, I wouldn't dare to use those words in Montenegro.
Kubura
15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, no one says "nogomet"(except for some older people who still sometimes use it- I've heard it from my grandfather, a Montenegrin from Riječka nahija :). Anyway, it is not widely used at all, so I don't think it should be in the article. Also, the word "neodgojen" is not used whatsoever. Sideshow Bob 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"'Osoba' perfectly normal Serbian"???
Duja, ostali... jeste li vi to mene uhvatili u đir? Are you kidding with me? Is this some kind of hidden camera?
"Nogomet", "osoba", "tvornica"... are now "also used", "perfectly normal" in Serbian in Montenegrin language?
Where you were when I had problems (discussions, threats, almost "fights"!) with (Bosnian and Serbian) Serbs and Montenegrins (and Bosniaks; they used "srpski ili hrvatski"), when I served the federal army, because I refused to use words like "fudbal", "vaspitanje", "lice" (I've spoken about the "dizalo za 4 osobe", and they wanted me to say "lift za 4 lica"), "fabrika" in my communication (both official and unofficial)?
Not to mention what kind of "earwashing" had Croatian Serbs (especially ones from areas that weren't the leading ones in rebellion, warmongering and anti-Croat rhetoric); the previously mentioned "attackers" thought of those Serbs that they were Croats or, if they knew that these are Serbs, treated those Serbs like they "betrayed Serb cause" or "pro-Croatian", "pro-Tudjman", "pro-ustashi" (!), "anti-Yugoslav".
Younger generations won't understand this, neither foreigners, but older generations 'll exactly know what I've meant and what I've said.
Kubura
19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Odgoj "typical"?? Where?
As I know, using of words "osoba, odgoj, tvornica" in Serbia, as well as in ex-YU republics that had "Serbo-Croat language" as official was considered as Croat provocation, even "ustashi"(!). Bunch of texts were written (in Serb language), with those words as subject of mocking, or those words were used in negative, derrogative context ("...pa neka "gospoda" "bojovnici" "odgajaju" "osobe" u svojoj "demokraciji"). Duja, you're older, I don't have to prove you this, you had opportunity to read, see and hear such texts in all Serbian and Montenegrin media.
Kubura
09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop POV-ing, please. You may fool outer world, but you can't fool those who lived in SFRY. I've read a bunch of newspapers, magazines, seen a thousands of hours of materials produced in Serb language/officially called "Serbocroat" (which in fact was Serb language) (or subtitled in that language): films, documentaries, educational programme, sports games broadcasts, TV-news and journals (over TV Beograd, TV Novi Sad, TV Titograd, TV Sarajevo). Not to mention that I talked with speakers of that language a lot of times. For those words you say that "are in use in Serb language"... the Serbs I've talked to, didn't know what words mean(???!!) or, in other case, considered them as "Croat words" (see my experiences from above).
Argument about prekrižiti... it's a lie. Crosswords are called "ukrštene reči" or "ukrštenica" in Serb language.
About osoba... ton of words 've been written here. "Lice" solely as "face" (except few examples????) ??? Gimme a break! Serbs are very eager to say "meni osobno" instead of "meni lično", isn't it? Or "osoblje", not "personal"?
Nobody mentioned "željezo" here. Željezo and gvozd appear in Croat and in Serb language.
I've heard about nevaspitana deca, vaspitno-popravni dom, moralno-političko vaspitanje. I've never heard Serbs using odgajati or odgoj in any form.
"Nogomet" and "Croat monthforms" in Serb language? Where that comes from? Maybe through yours declaring of Illyrian language (other, one of older synonyms for Croat language) as Serb?
Pax, you are continuing your policy of argumenting that something is Serbian/belongs to Serbs, just by declaring it. Things don't work that way here.
Kubura
14:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention the Bunjevac language? -- PaxEquilibrium 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's finally the time to archive this page, its over 100 kb's long.
Second, shall we make new sections in the article, sections regarding the differences in terminology in certain areas? (Razlike u znanstvenom i stručnom nazivlju).
Kubura
12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Šargarepa" is more used in Serbia ("we" are also only saying "šargarepa"), but "mrkva" can be used too. Look at the sources:
http://www.bosna.unas.cz/slovnik.html
(srpski ekavski: šargarepa, mrkva / hrvatsk iijekavski: mrkva / bosanski ijekavski: mrkva)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/serbo-croatian/mrkva
(Croatian mrkva carrot.
Serbian (Latin Script) mrkva carrot.
etc.)
"Sretan" is SURE also used in Serbia and therefore I don't need sources (ja ne govorim hrvatski ili bosanski, srpski je moj maternji jezik). I'm from Serbia (not from BiH or Hr) and
we are always saying "sretan". Please do NOT delete the word “sretan” again. It is really not necessary (and it's out of order) to make the differences between the languages bigger as they are!
[Edit:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sretan
Bosnian Sretan happy.
Croatian sretan fortunate, happy.
Serbian (Latin Script) sretan glad.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sre%25C4%2587an
Serbian (Latin Script) srećan auspicious, blessed, fortunate, happy, happy-go-lucky, lucky, prosperous, successful
Another source:
http://www.krstarica.com/dictionary/index.php?u=sretan]
Pronouns (Editwar):
Serbian language:
"Gdje/Gde ćeš biti?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da budeš?"
"Gdje/Gde ćeš ići?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da ideš?"
Both versions are correct, so it is enough to mention the first sentence, but it's wrong to mention ONLY the second sentence.
172.180.86.246
13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken shouldn't the title be "Differences among standard Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. Since there are more than two? At the same time change the languages to alphabetical order since this order does not make sense. In the first sentence the order is alphabetical. Thanks, Vseferović 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Among other things English description for "kuda" and "kamo" strikes me as odd and imprecise:
Kamo has answers in these adverbs:ovamo, tamo, onamo, with similar English translations, but these adverbs refere to the certain side, wider area, meaning here (on my side), there (on your side), there (neither by my side nor by your side).
Simple English translation of "gd(j)e?" but be "where" whereas "kuda?" and "kamo?" would be translated as "where to?". English-equivalent examples of use of "gd(j)e":
Examples for "kuda" and "kamo"?
Consequently, answers to "gd(j)e" would be "in/on/at/by something" or similar (possibly but not necessarily related to here/there stuff) and answers to "kuda" and "kamo" would begin with to, towards, etc.
--
Aleksandar Šušnjar
21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
One more thing... it actually isn't important to describe differences in meanings between "gde" and "kuda/kamo" within the scope of this article. The only thing that may need to be explained is how common are uses of "kuda" and "kamo"... -- Aleksandar Šušnjar 14:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another thing... I checked "kuda" translation with Morton Benson dictionary and it is translated to English as "where to" - same as I translated it above. "Kamo" is translated as "1. see kuda 2. see gde 3. ~ (sreće) if only; ...". But I realized that there is probably more to it, as I use both "kuda" and "kamo" - it just 'clicked' that they are different. Specifically, to me "kuda" actually does not question the destination but the path, as in "Which way are you taking (to get somewhere)?". "Kamo", on the other hand, only implies destination question (to me), not which way is taken. Something like this:
-- Aleksandar Šušnjar 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I am serbian and yes we do use the latin script as well as the cyrillic script. We can read and understand croatian perfectly including the minor differences you listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.31.83 ( talk) 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved pagename to this version, in alphabetical order. First goes B, then goes C, and finally goes S. Kubura ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There's one mistake.
At first sight, it may seem all OK. But, AFAIK, at least for Croatian, the active form is being preferred, not the passive form (as it is the case in Germanic and Romanic languages). Passive form is used mostly when it cannot be avoided, in order to avoid double meanings (for that reason, it appears mostly in iuristic stuff), or to be more polite (active form is too direct, it may sound too imposing).
So, "Nitko ne smije biti držan u ropstvu..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije držati u ropstvu..." and "Nitko ne smije biti podvrgnut mučenju..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije podvrgnuti...".
Kubura (
talk)
09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing:-whoever removed my previous post on the same topic on this page, should know that it's an act of violence, and if we all start being violent, everyone can change or remove parts of wikipedia that he/she doesn't like. That is not ok, and it might lead to a chaos on wikipedia. Personally I have a few posts in mind, and nothing will stop me from removing or changing them if I find any of my recent posts removed again. There are many ways to change or get a new IP address in case of banning, so let's be more civilized and stop the vandalism. With respect to this wikipedia. Cheers. 24.86.127.209 ( talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fut.Perf.; First, thanks for your objective thinking this time, and second, I think that my post is just representing an opinion about A FACT, a very well known fact about how similar the 3 standards of the SerboCroatian Language are, something that finally can be publically seen by putting a text sample on the article's page. This fact has been constantly ignored and overlooked just by a few persons like Kubura, and he is absolutely the last one on this world who should suggest something to be done on the SerboCroatian language discussion page. Kubura's posts on any discussion page (mostly on pages about Croatia, ex-Yugoslavia etc.) are full of POVs, full of ignorance to the real facts of the things and full of presenting the well known lies and nonsense of the defeated croatian nationalistic propaganda from the last century. So, please consider all this above in your 'dealings' with Kubura and the 2-3 other croatian members with similar 'ideas' like him, because although lately they seems to be 'changing' and being more accepting to the reality out of their world, still I would be very cautious with them, because a wise proverb says:'The wolf changes his fur, but not his mind'. Best Regards. 24.86.127.209 ( talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker, but I still miss the variants for bread. I thought that they were characteristic. I cannot add them because I do not know what to do with the Bosnian. Andreas (T) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The controversy of this article stems from the fact that the languages discussed are overwhelmingly similar, with identical complex grammar and tiny variations in vocabulary. The article is useful in some parts, however it appears to have premeditated goal to establish linguistic independence of new ex-Yugoslav countries.
The main sources in the text are overwhelmingly of Croatian origin. Perhaps it would be best if the article as a whole were marked with a NPOV tag until sources from Serbian (and other, e.g. Bosniak) linguists were added? --Acachinero
It is clear that merged into one country people were pushed to overcome language differences, which is not a necessarily bad thing. Also truth is that modern inhabitant of Zagreb and his equivalent from Belgrade use languages that are incredibly same. What is essential is that introduction of this article doesn't present 1850's Vienna agreement that was actual beginning of the Serbo-Croatian language and that has nothing to do with the country of Yugoslavia. Living in one country or five hundred, south Slavs would profit from common standard language that they are so much afraid off. Mladen Panic
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.133.15 ( talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't move this page to "Differences in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" or something similar. There are reasons why it is named as it is. Nikola 06:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't have overly strong feelings about this, so I won't change it yet; but I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Duja 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I as a native speaker of the Serbo-Croatian language, must proclaim that this is a load of horse excrement because the examples shown in the article are CONTRA-INDICATIVE; the person who wrote it should at least check into basic logic rules because, if you say that something IS then there can be no EXCEPTION. Obviously this was written by somebody who is only desperate to make a distinction between the languages and not by somebody who is actually academicaly competent to give their opinion. Sorry, but this is no cigare... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.90.251 ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This whole page is a joke, I am not surprised that Shallot wrote most of it... oh brother... I'll deal with it later. -- Igor 10:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
At the risk of opening a can of worms, would it be worth making a comment on the political motivation of differentiation?
This page really is a joke. Wow. Unbelievable!
This page is a joke - if you lived in the four different YU countries as I have, please contact me - if not, go take care of your cat and your wife and children because you have no idea about these languages.
Slusaj majstore, ja sam lingvista i bavim se ovim jezicima, nemoj da dajes ovakve podatke narodu jer ce pogresno da shvate citav sektor. Dovoljno problema imamo sa time sto vandali pale ambasade i prave picvajz po ulicama, nemoj da dodajes vatru na ulje, leba ti. I nemoj da se ljutis, landsman sam, postujem sto pokusavas da objasnis situaciju, ali ipak dozvoli da neko ko ima akademsko zaledje objasni sta se desava. Pozdrav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.90.251 ( talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this page, i adopted from Croatian to pretty good Bosnian during just three months: I started saying organizovati and to use da-constructions, but realizovati still sounds somewhat alien.
Another thing about vocabulary: in my understanding which i built up speaking with people mostly in Osijek and Sarajevo and reading Croatian, some Serbian and little Bosnian, liciti means to look like predominantly in a transferred sense (to lici na njega) while I thought the word sliciti as in to be similar to be universal (slici na brata). And I know slikati or more precisely crtati rather thant liciti for to paint.
And I think it can be said that words like dzada or sargarepa are regionalisms and not actually used by everybody who consideres his/her language as Serbian. And the difference stol/sto is actually more morphology than vocabulary.
More general to morphology: There are certainly missing forms like porez/poreza, minuta/minut, osnova/osnov. As is the h/v stuff (suh/suv, kuhati/kuvati), and the endings -telj/-lac. Jakob Stevo 16:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
So I will Jakob Stevo 13:15, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
All three languages can form verb sub-phrases in two different ways, with use of infinitive, or with use of the helper word "da" (which could be translated to English as "to"; note that "da" also means "yes").
The sentence "I want to do that" could be translated with any of
"Hoću to da uradim"
"Hoću to uraditi"
Or "Will you do that?", which can be translated with both
"Da li ćeš to da uradiš?"
"Da li ćeš to uraditi?"
In most of Serbia and Bosnia, the first method is preferred in the vernacular, but in written language, the second method is frequently used to mean "will", while the first is used to mean "want to".
I think this part needs rewriting, for several factual errors and/or misguidances to an English-speaker. First, I'd rather call "da" a conjunction in this case rather than "helper word".
Second, the construct is always "da"+present tense.
Third, I'd rather translate "da" in this context as "that" rather than "to": I'd translate "Hoću to da uradim" to English literally as "I want that I do that".
Fourth, since the Serbian distinction of "ću da uradim" vs. "ću uraditi" is similar to English will vs. shall so the meaning is not obvious. I'd replace the above "will" with "shall" (I shall do it is AFAIK still perfectly fine English, although shall disappears esp. from Am.En., but it better disambiguates the translation).
Then, few words could also be spared on related construction of future tense :
"Uradit ću to" (Croatian)
"Uradiću to" (Serbian)
"Ja ću to uraditi" (Both, "I shall do that")
"Ja ću to da uradim" (Serbian, "I will/want to do that". Probably occurs in colloquial Cr. although I'd guess It would be treated as "Serbism" in official circles)
Comments? [Sorry, forgot the sig, newbie. Duja 12:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)]
I've edited the paragraph in question, trying to take into account your recent remarks. Feel free to comment/praise/vomit on it. Duja 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Reflaction is a word in English. From the context, I think "transformation over time" is what is meant. What is the correct word here? Key45 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Serbain - 'zejtin' for oil, seems to be semetic, from the semetic word for 'olives', present in arabic dialect, hebrew, aramiac. --80.178.230.241
In the Vocabulary section, why is Passport - pasoš, putovnica, pasoš in the But section? What makes it different from the "spinach", "factory", or "rice" examples? - Key45 22:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- still wondering Key45 21:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First: "Bosnian language" is nonexestent! It's either spoken Ijekavian Serbian, or Croatian. For the language to exist, you need literature, books writen on that language, and you need some difference to the existing language. You can erase everything considering croatian language, because I see they are compleetly changing their language structure, and words, and nobody has time to update the page every time they decide to change something. Now there is also question about existance of the new language. Where is the literature writen on croatian. After the point they say the language strucure is reached the stabile point, and they rewrite most of the books on their languagem, only then it deserves to be called a language
What about those distinct languages, such as North and South American native languages, which do not have literature, books written on the language (apart from Anthropological ones)? I agree that all 3 languages are remarkably similar (and I was raised to think that they are the same language). Difference is something like that between French French (fr_FR), Belgian French (fr_BE) and Canadian French (fr_CA), or English (en_GB, en_IE, en_US). - 3 June 2005 14:36 GMT
I recently reverted a semi-anonymous change that conflicts with my experiences - can someone else confirm or deny it? -- Joy [shallot] 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how correct example of studentkinja and studentica? It seems to me that the usage of the Prva (first) Palatelizacija was not applied to the word studentkinja. Prva Palatelizacija is the change of consonants k, g, h to c, z, s, which is the gramatical rule I was tought by my old high school teacher in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who herself was from Serbia (born and educated there). Therefore, rather than studentkinja being the Serbian word, I think it is gramatically incorrect word (although I might be wrong). - 3 June 2005 14:45 GMT
In Croatian the word for 'house' is dom, while in Serbian it is kuća. However, the Croatian word for 'houswife' is kućanica, while the Serbian one is domaćica. I was told that this was the argument originally used to name the language Serbo-Croat (although probably simplified). - 3 June 2005 14:55 GMT
Latin domus is dom, while latin casa (house) stands for kuća in Croatian. Or simply: to a caveman, the cave was his dom, not kuća :) . Kubura 07:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Excerpt from an English-language manual on getting around with Croatian (but applies to all three), got this in one of those forwarded mails:
The forwarded mail's subject indicates that this manual was used by SFOR/ KFOR, but I'd rather not trust that. The text is true, however. :) Perhaps we should also include a Infamous exceptions section in the article :) -- Joy [shallot] 19:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check out this image for a nice illustration of BCMSxyz swearing: the guy on the left is Slovene and says "tristo hudičev" (i.e. 300 devils), and you can try to interpret what the Serb on the right replies. Zocky 23:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph makes it seem that if you were to translate text from Croatian to Serbian, you'd get ridiculous differences. These differences actually came from nationalistic ambitions, where translators attempted to make the languages seem as different as possible. I added the truth behind it, my sources are people who actually live in the former Yugoslavia (not just one republic) and actually thought that Rane translation was a joke.
-- Hurricane Angel 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone please explain, if possible, post an article, to explain how funny is the "translation"? And for your information, I DON'T KNOW Serbo-Croat or Serbian, or Montenegrin, or Croatian, or Bosnian, or whatever! So please translate the funny into English in the page please. Of course, the original translation between those languages MUST be shown. Thanks! -- Edmundkh 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Tisuća" was used in Croatian for "thousand" long before the war of independence. An example is the Croatian edition of the children's book "Tisuću zašto, tisuću zato" (there was a Serbian Cyrillic one too, IIRC) which was published by Vuk Karadžić publishing company, Belgrade, in 1986. So talking about "hiljada being replaced by tisuća" in 1991 is pure bull. Also, "srećan" has always been a Serbian (and maybe Bosnian) word so using it as an example of people (including the president) using a "normal" variant instead of the "recently-coined" one, as was suggested by this footnote, is misleading.
Finally, "drum" is never used in standard Croatian for "road". "Cesta" is used for "road" and "put" is mostly used for "lane" or "way". -- Elephantus 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
'Serbian officially uses both Latinic and Cyrillic whilst Croatian explicitly uses Latinic' is a total and utter fallacy. This is the institutionalized nonsense created by a blend of ignorance with wishful thinking. First of all, before people decide to call something 'official' they should find out what the term actually means, and its article in Wikipedia (Official Language) is one of the few where you had a well informed editor. It is simple and there is no debate. Article 8 of the Constitution of Serbia confirms that Cyrillic is the official alphabet of Serbian. Latinic is only used in a manner according to law alongside the usage of any foreign languages for official purposes. None of this is known to happen. In Croatia, Article 12 is a mirror reflection of Article 8 in Serbia, stating that Latinic is the official alphabet with Cyrillic only accepted in accordance with law parallel to foreign languages. Latinic is popular in Serbia and among Serbs for private reasons. They publish books, pop and folk music album sleeves, newspapers, leaflets, brochures, restaurant menus and they write postcards in the Latinic script. This does not make it official and being official in the first place would not be an excuse to use it anyhow. The only places where the official alphabet is used is on constitutional documents, such as the Republic of Serbia, federal Parliament Building: on the tablet leading to the entrance, and other political buildings. The word 'Policija' on Police jackets. Since 2002, Policija was written in Latinic on police cars around Serbia whilst still on Cyrillic on their shirts. There is a reason but only those who observe can spot it. Serbia and Montenegro, and its predecessor Yugoslavia, operated the joint language to represent both republics on the ashes of the old Serbo Croat. This usually meant the literary language of Serbia with its vocabulary and entire Ekavian system in the Latinic script of Croatia's literary language, a phenomenon never too widely accepted but dating back to 1914. The new Police Cars, usually Puegeot 307 or Mercedes 190, with Policija-Latinic all contain the tricolor of the 1992 Yugoslavian flag with White running in the middle, therefore the cars have been issued by the Federal Police and not the Serbian Police. Yes there is a Federal Police division with powers over both republics' police. The whole reason that an official script even exists is that there may be a source of confusion in the first place, usually because a single language has been written in two or more alphabets. To have two official alphabets is a debasement of why an 'official' one is even needed, better to allow people to do what they want and continue a life of linguistic anarchy. Either way, any arguements accepting Latinic as official in Serbia should also support their claim by arguing that Cyrillic is equally official in Croatia, and this, i doubt they will do. Ragusan 5 November 2005
Somebody appears to have switched the item back the original as in the source. Well it is simple, the source was and is erroneous. I maintain that in the Republic of Serbia, only Cyrillic is official. Where Latinic is used, one may write in Middle English in the Persian script, won't make it official norm a form of Serbian. The constitutional documents are all written in Cyrillic. The only way that it is possible for a single language to have two official alphabets is when the speech community is split into two and are represented by a seperate script for traditional reasons. Latinic making its way into Serbia and staying is a legacy of the Serbo Croat. Before that, there was NO Serb who used Latinic anywhere. Even when Vuk Karadžić introduced the 'j' to replace the short-i, it was met with dissatisfaction from inhabitants of the then-Serbian country, accusing him of Croatianizing the language. There are those who argue that Latinic is official because of the non-Serb nationals living all over Serbia, mainly Vojvodina. This is illogical, therefore impossible: If Albanian, Hungarian and Romanian all employ the Latinic script for their modern languages, the concept of rescripting Serbian into Latinic is neither here nor there. The task of learning a second language in the first place involves adapting to the norms of the speech community you are taking an interest in, whether it be for private interest, for professional reasons or simply because it is the national language of the country you live in but you are not ethnicly a national of it. There can be no such thing as 'a Cyrillic script for the serbs, but the Latinic script in official usage for Hungarians'. Point Number 1: if the government are to regard the Hungarians, they will allow them to use their OWN language for official purposes. Point Number 2: All languages to use an alphabet used for another language, have their own orthography and that has to be learned first. Even then, they are still writing a foreign language in a form of alphabet devized by primary members of the speech community. If there are any further arguments stating that non-Serb nationals may use either alphabet because they are both present and official then that begs the original question, why the Latinic alphabet official? The argument stating that 'it is for foreigners' would now be dead, because it is there to serve your purposes, not theirs. Israelis do not write their Hebrew script in Arabic to appease the Palestinians and the Greeks certainly don't write their language in the Latnic script to make it easier to learn for the Turks. Ragusan 6 November 2005.
There is a load of garbage in the Phonemes section too. Quite a few, but I will focus on just one. Parts of Croatia where they don't so much have a Č sound, but a Ć sound, and often something inbetween. There is no existing sound inbetween the two. In cannot even exist. The problem is that in the Serbo Croat speaking domains, nobody has ever truely understood the purpose of the letters ć and đ. They are not softer versions of Č and DŽ. What happens nowadays is that the so-called softer sounds are pronounced as anybody else would pronounce the normal CH and Dzh sounds, 'noć' like English 'Notch' and when pronouncing 'Čakovec', they do so with the tip of the tongue further back towards the middle of the ridge, applying more pressure to give it a harsher effect. That is pointless and was never the purpose of the sounds, but because of everyones ownership of language, this habit has fossilized into a rule. Since the two letters in both cases still exist and the languages of Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian would still strongly recommend using one lexeme per phoneme, I must insist that the importance of the letters should be stressed and explained properly:
Subsection discussing Croatian neologisms has to be there - it is vital to explain to a wider audience what is going on there. Use of jokes is also valid, and I dont see how you can atempt to portray Serbian version of the language as awkward (by a artificial sentence containing 5 'da', which is really just a derogating joke circularing in croatia - and note that this was not admitted, but perfidly veiled as how a sentence "typically" sounds), while removing jokes (which perfectly illustrate the issue) in the neo-croatian section (and which are clearly marked as jokes). croatian perfidry and hypocrisy will not stand here!! Suvarijeka 12:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
i have corrected it, but you keep reverting it, together with all other material a top of joke/neologism page. it is undeniable that croatian television and media forces some new words to croatian publec - btw croatian tv is widely acessible in serbia through cable tv (which is widespread). do you have any valid reason not to include disucssion of such neologisms, and very illustrative jokes, that are part of folclore connected with newly established languages? politics of new language is much part of this article as anything else is. if you think some of the information is incorrect, you may correct it but it is wrong to exclude valid material just because it doesnt fit in your nationalist agenda. it is against wikipedia policy to do so! Suvarijeka 02:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
For instance, you might help distinguishing real words from the jokes/parodies. For instance, it turned out that words such as 'zrakomlat' or 'krugovalna postaja' are in fact used in Croatia (even if infrequently - it is not surprising that not all attempts by nationalist driven neo-Croatian language drive was not completely successful, after all, people are not as easily influenced as politicians sometimes assume). It is true that some of the neo-Croatian language consists of once obscure (and now ressurected) words - I have now emphasized this point in the article, but it is undeniable that there are neologisms and that they are popularized.
Even if you do not want parodies to be included (and as I said, sometimes it is difficult to tell parody from a real word; the parodies can give YOU (a Croatian speaker) idea how the other more legitimate words sound to the rest of the Serbo-croatian speakers; they are very illustrating and should be included as much as comment about Rane is, i.e. it gives a wider context of the language war in Croatia)), even then there are real examples (marked as R) of neologisms used instead of international words, obscure words now in more frequent use etc. To simply revert all my changes is close to vandalism, and is certainly an attempt to exclude some of the less flattering sides of the Croatian drive to have their own distinct language. If people across ex-Yu laugh at you (and they are, not only Serbs laugh at such misguided attempts btw), there must be some reason for it. The fact that they do laugh has a place on this page, IMO. Suvarijeka 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone from Croatia please confirm or deny the usage of ko in Croatian I wrote? Google search for "onaj tko" [2] versus "onaj ko" [3] contradicts the info I entered in the article, and "Taj tko" [4] (which sounds horrible to my ears) versus "Taj ko" [5] is indecisive. Duja 11:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Standard Croatian knows no "ko" instead of "tko". Still, in some Croatian dialects you'll find use of " 'ko " (note: the apostroph!). In such situations in Croatian you feel that there was a dropped "sound", while in serb. sounds more "harder", like... like there was no "t" originally in "ko". Kubura 10:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Nikola wrote: AFAIK, ju is the only correct in Serbian too, but is most oftenly incorrectly used.
See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije Hope, many of you will contribute! :) -- Neoneo13 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No closing down Serbo-Croat Wikipedia!! -- Edmundkh 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the German version of the article, and noticed a lot of errors concerning compared words. Some words which are used as synonyms are given as different between Serbian and Croatian, for example, stranka/partija or rezati/seći. Some words which are different in Ekavian and Ijekavian are given as different in Croatian/Bosnian and Serbian, creating impression that Ijekavian forms are only Bosnian. Some words are flat out wrong such as komadić/komadić, parče, where komadić and parče mean two different things, and osnova/osnov. If someone here knows German, please correct this. Nikola 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the word for president in Serbian? In this article it shows it as "predsjednik", but the official government websites of Serbia show it as "predsednik" ... minus the j. For example [6] and [7]. Even the Serbian wikipedia has it as "predsednik", see here. -- 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Kubura wrote:
Kubura, you may have a point regarding uticati, proliv. I'm not sure where the difference stems from though; they might be "pseudo-ijekavisms" indeed. However, they don't look like Greek loans -- the roots tek- and lev- seem Slavic. My guess is that there perhaps was not an ě. However, you left in the subsequent sentence, which was "orphaned"; I commented it out as well until we settle this. (Btw, it's also abdomen in Serbian, but I get your point. Cf. Betlehem vs. Vitlejem).
As for syllabic "l", it's a red herring. L is not syllabic in standard language, period. It's limited to dialectal usage in Torlakian dialect and to Czech toponyms. Duja 16:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
==Syllabic l, pseudo-eta etc.==
This is also on Duja's talk page.
1.Of course these words are not of Greek origin, but with the development of language, they are felt as "ita". Similar thing happened in Croatian language, where some "e" in some words began to be felt as "yat", e.g. in "susjed/susid".
2.About "l", sorry for wrong expression, I wanted to note the case of Croatian "sokol, vol, stol" - Serbian "soko, vo, sto". Do you get me now? That's the "l" I wanted to tell you about. Kubura 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dijan wrote:
This last sentence should be taken out because in this context the word "što" does not mean "what". It means "which". So the sentence literally means: That which he said is a lie.
E is pronounced [ɛ] in Serbian and Bosnian and [e] in Croatian, and o is pronounced [ɔ] in Serbian and Bosnian and [o] in Croatian. That’s according to the languages’ respective Wikipedia articles, at least.
I removed this sentence from the bottom of the second paragraph of the first bullet-point in the "Notes on comprehension" section, because if you think about it, it's a rather politically-charged sentence and does not need to be there, since the paragraph discusses comprehension:
"This does not answer the primary question, and that is: does a Bosniak want to speak the same language as a Serb, or to call his language by the same name as a Serb?"
Also changed the first and second sentences of the second bullet-point.
Alan. -- 84.66.250.254 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I had to add {{ POV-section}} to the Mir's contribution; I understand he added it in a hurry though. Without questioning his good faith, the problem is that it presents one view of one linguist, which has its own conclusion (which, curiously, matches Mir's opinion); other linguists will certainly have different views. So, I agree the section is needed, but it should offer an overview of different views on the matter (plus, is it considered a copyvio as such?). Personally, I don't have a problem with this view on the things, but other views should be included as well (in my opinion, the matter comes down to whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, but it's just my view).
Also, I removed "linguistically strictly codified" from the opening sentence. "Strictly" is not accurate enough—while it might be true for Croatian, the other two are generally less picky about alleged "Croatisms" or "Serbisms". In other words, the decisions whether a phrase constitutes a valid "Serbian" and "Croatian" are often moot, especially from Serbian point of view. Duja 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Quot:"Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. (Cyrillic is in official use in Serbia and Republika Srpska. Latin script is also accepted as defined by laws, and used roughly by 1/3 of native speakers as the first script, although no official records exist).". Are you sure ? I know that the source is a bit hysterical & nationally exclusive (why would Serbian language be "endangered" or "Croatianized" by Latin script ?), but I also found the following data elsewhere: Serbs in Serbia proper write predominantly, 60-80%, in Latin script: http://govori.tripod.com/cirilica.htm Mir Harven 12:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not meddle into the article as I do not feel informed enough about the entire wikipedia system but I'd like to make some suggestions for this article to clarify two important things. First, there doesn't seem to be any mention at all about the pre-Yugoslavian period so an uninformed reader gets an impression that Serbo-Croatian has always existed and Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian are only newly created in the '90s which is completly contrary to the truth since the word srpskohrvatski was never even used before 19th century. It would be great to see a comparison of 15th or 16th century Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian literature languages. Yes, I'm aware of the word "standard" in the title but this is way too important to be dismissed on that grounds and (as far as I know) there is no better place to put it. Secondly, I think there should be a longer, 10-20 sentences long text written in all three languages as well as in English. These tables give a lot of examples but are of little practical meaning and along with the last paragraph can lead to a conclusion that there are no real differences. A longer text would leave it to any readers common sense to judge this, which is, IMO, probably the best option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.242.115 ( talk • contribs)
That's the stupidest thing written above-to compare the dialects from 15th or 16th century. It's a total nonsense considering that those 'languages' don't exist any more and are not spoken today. Why should you compare something that don't exist? That's Crazy!!! Those comparizons should be done somewhere else, where the history of the dialects of one language is discussed, not on this page! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 ( talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2007
How many dialects are in everyday use in Germany besides the offical Hochdeutsch? Person from Hanover hardly understands Schwäbisch dialect from Baden-Württemberg. Austrians or Prussians wouldn't also understand much of a Platdeutsch. And does anyone even dream about saying that Niedersachsen is not German? No! And why not? No one is that stupid! For the same reason no one is trying to promote Australian, Canadian, American, Jamaican or South African Language.
Why promoting Bosnian then?
Bosnian language is pure fabrication for the political purposes. It was recognized by UN during the civil war in Bosnia, as a support to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. There were no true linguistic or any other scientific reasons for its recognition. All the reasons in favor of Bosnian language are deficient and politicaly motivated.
Bosnian languaage uses Latin alphabet in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cyrillic alphabet in the Republika Srpska. No, it doesn't! Bosnian language is not in use in Republika Srpska. Ask the locals. They are ethnic Serbs. What langugage do you think they speak?
Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. No, it doesn't. Serbo-Croatian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. Serbian language uses Cyrillic alphabet only. Serbian Cyrillic is unique and native to the Serbian language.
Differences between Serbian and Croatian are minor. They are even smaller than ones between German and Austrian. It is one and same language - Serbo-Croatian.
Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (also Croatian or Serbian, Serbian or Croatian) (srpskohrvatski or cрпскохрватски or hrvatskosrpski or hrvatski ili srpski or srpski ili hrvatski). It belongs to south Slavic group of languges, along with Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbocroatian language is based on Štokavian dialect and defined Ekavian (ekavski) and Iyekavian (ijekavski) pronunciations. It also has Kajkavian and Chakavian as its dialects.
For some political or any other purpose, someone can invent five or ten more languages on Balkans, but it wouldn't change a fact: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrians are speaking with one langugage: Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.198.140 ( talk • contribs)
BRAVO, YOU TOLD THE ENTIRE TRUTH! 'Croatian', 'Bosnian','Serbian' and now "Montenegrin', 'Sokac', 'Bunjevac' and soon probably 'Dalmatian' are just POLITICAL CREATIONS by some brainwashed nationalist who are temporary in position to do that, nothing else! Those all 'languages' are ONE language, and they differ between themselves less than the dialects in one language. All this craziness about having 'theirown, reagional language'is a total nonsense, a total crap which nobody serious in the scientific world takes for seirous. And very certainly everyone normal is LAUGHING to that load of rubbish! Lackily the ordinary people doesn't take it seriously either, they all know that they speak one language-SeboCroatian or Croato-Serbain. Greetings and Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2007
The terms Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian etc. are also politicaly motivated names or shall we nationalistically or pannationalistically, so are many other languages or their names in the world. I am not a linguist, so I can not argue if the whole region speaks the same language, but I doubt it, because some dialects are hardly understable to others without study. However I do know that the Slovenian language artifically separated its Carniolic version from the Kajkavian dialect for nationalistical reasons (done by Kopitar) and that from a linguistic point of view the whole Štokavian dialect is considered as one language, but this does not mean that this language is Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian or any other of those (pan)nationalistic names. This language is multiethnical, but it will not be recognised as such anytime soon probably. However, there have been such discussions among the croatian linguists. Bye
Recent addition by User:83.131.71.79 (Mir?):
However, arguments along similar lines tend to be blurred due to the following reasons:
- there is no "purely linguistic level"
- speaking of the genetic level, no classification of languages pays much attention to this category. For instance, South and Eastern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian,..) belong, genetically, to the one category and Western Slavic languages (Polish, Czech, Lusatian,..) to another, without repercussions for the individuality and identity of particular languages
- speaking of the typological level, languages are classified according to the root grammar, ie. morphology and syntax. So, according to this criterion, Hindi and Urdu are one and the same language- which is not the dominant position among linguists today (see. Ausbausprache). In the case of Croatian and Serbian, two levels are confused: the language as a system and a language as a standard. Since Croatian as a system is based on three dialects and Serbian on one (with the peripheral Torlak dialect), these two languages cannot be considered typologically one language. But, Pranjković's argument can be refined: Croatian and Serbian (as well as Bosnian) standard languages are all based on the neoštokavian dialect, therefore share virtually the same elementary phonology, morphology and syntax (with a few minor differences). According to this view, Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian can be considered to be varieties of a single abstract language-the number of phonemes, declination and conjugation are the same. Opponents of this contention claim that this is unduly reductionist view on standard languages since it tries to describe a phenomenon of language resorting to the incomplete set of variables describing a standard language: theoretical linguistics description of a standard language does not include phonology, morphology and syntax only, but also phonetics, word-formation, semantics, lexicology and stylistics. According to this view, Pranjković's argument is valid (although not completely) until the level of standardology: at this level, it fails due to the flaw of reductionism.
While I'm not particularly against the views stated above, this looks like an original research. If this is a quote from some renowned linguist, it should be attributed; if not, it cannnot stay in the article. Wikipedia articles are not essays; we are not here to polemize with quoted experts, but to report their opinions. As stated, the addition tries to interpret the opinions and offer a third view; readers should draw their own conclusions. Duja 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/138/tekstovi/06.htm
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/477924/index.do
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/495867/index.do
My take: "Ivo Pranjković, kao kroatist poznog-srednjeg naraštaja (kao i nešto stariji Silić, ili mlađi Samardžija i još neki) ima "kompleks" jednoga od doajena hrvatske lingvistike Stjepana Babića. Babić je, uz Katičića i Brozovića, smatran glavnim hrvatskim jezikoslovnim auktoritetom koji je prekinuo s lingvističkom starudijom i utemeljio suvremenu kroatistiku, baziranu na strukturalizmu i drugim smjerovima modernoga jezikoslovlja. Primjer Pranjkovićevih kompleksa vidljiv je ovdje: http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vij209.nsf/AllWebDocs/prenja U cijeloj priči neki Ćorić i slični ne igraju praktički nikakovu ulogu. Ako se ide u motive Pranjkovićevih nerijetko protuslovnih izjava, a prati što je pisao (npr., njegova polemika sa zagovornicom hrvatskoga unitarizma Snježanom Kordić, izašlom u nekoliko brojeva časopisa "Književna republika"), razvidno je sljedeće:
a) Ivo je Pranjković stalno opterećen kompleksom jezikoslovaca starijega naraštaja (rođenih od 1920.-1930.), te njihovom dominacijom zbog čega nije primljen u HAZU
b) Pranjkovićeva je djelatnost u samostalnoj Hrvatskoj uglavnom u oprjeci spram svega što dolazi iz tih dominantnih krugova vitalnih staraca-napose u pravopisu, te je praktički "antiprotivan" u odnosu na sve njihove prijedloge oko jezičnoga normiranja. Ili-Pranjković je u više navrata izrazio pozitivno mišljenje (kasnije modificirano) o djelima Vladimira Anića, nekim radovima Josipa Silića i dr., a koja su dobila negativnu ocjenu zbog ustupaka jezičnom unitarizmu i "Novosadizmu".
c) što se tiče Srba i srpskih lingvista, Pranjković je imao (i ima, sudi li se po njegovim intervjuima) pozitivno mišljenje jedino o Ranku Bugarskom i, dijelom, Ivanu Klajnu. Dobro mišljenje o Pavlu Iviću je definitivno pokopano velikosrpskom bljezgarijom potonjega, a o ostalim srpskim jezikoslovcima se i nije izjašnjavao-osim o Čoriću, u ovom slučaju, a potaknut polemičkim prikazom rečenoga.
d) velik je dio Pranjkovićevih tekstova polemičke naravi, a ne znanstvene (što je i jedan od razloga što nije u HAZU-nema dovoljno radova), no u svojim je istupima i polemikama ipak dovoljno jasan, bar što se tiče statusa hrvatskoga (i srpskoga):
1) što je jedan jezik, a što dva ili tri ili četiri-za to lingvistika nema odgovor. To nije lingvistička tema
2) Pranjković, za razliku od drugih hrvatskih lingvista, stalno naglašava genetskolingvističko jedinstvo dijalekatske baze hrvatskog i srpskog (i bošnjačkog). Uz njega, to čini, tu i tamo, i Dalibor Brozović. Ostali lingvisti (Katičić, Silić,..) smatraju da je to nevažno, jer standard nije sustav, po Silićevim riječima, i za standardni je jezik nepotrebno naklapanje o narječju na kojem je temeljen, to prije što narječna baza čini samo jezgrenu gramatiku ili morfosintaksu, dok je lingvistički opis standarda, od fonetike do tvorbe, semantike i leksikona, ovisan o samom procesu standardizacije. Valja reći da dobar dio lingvista drži da su kriteriji genetske lingvistike slabi i nedostatni za opis jezika (i na strukturnoj, a kamoli na standardološkoj razini)-pa je u tom pogledu Pranjković usamljen.
3) hrvatski standardni jezik je samosvojan jezik koji ima početke u vernakularu 15. stoljeća, s početkom standardizacije u 18. stoljeću i dovršetkom u 19.
To je Pranjkovićevo mišljenje koje ponavlja ad nauseam, u svih ovih 15-20 godina, što se može vidjeti iz njegovih jezikoslovno polemičkih knjiga (Kronika hrvatskoga jezikoslovlja, Jezikoslovna sporenja,..). Tvrdnje o tom da nema kriterija koji bi odlučivao što je jezik, da su hrvatski i srpski temeljeni na istom narječju, te da su hrvatski i srpski standardni jezici različiti jezici, kao što su različiti hindi i urdu (Pranjkovićev primjer iz polemike s Kordićkom).
I to je sve. Ako tko želi vidjeti s kojim je tezama Pranjković polemizirao, može to iz sljedećih tekstova (nisu Pranjkovićevi): http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic_PDF4.pdf i http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic1_PDF.pdf Mir Harven 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbo-Croatian language, which was defined as the common and unified language of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, also followed suit and officially split into three languages, still fully mutually intelligible.
That paragraph is illogical, so the language, seeing widespread political transformation decided to divide itself? A better paragraph would be something like that after the division of Yugoslavia, all former nations begun calling their dialect of Serbo-Croat a separate language, or maybe that the languages formerly grouped under the Serbo-Croat umbrella term have gained separate recognition or something like that, not that a language split itself, whatever that is supposed to mean. + Hexagon1 ( t) 09:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
. I think the intention of the sentence is fairly clear (I think I wrote it), but on second look it is clumsily worded.
Duja
►
08:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
after the division of Yugoslavia, all former nations begun calling their dialect of Serbo-Croat a separate language. Completely wrong, Hexagon. Croats always called their language hrvatski, Serbs always called their language srpski. Despite political interventions. Always, before and during Yugoslavia. You have a bunch of literature about that.
The other case is with Bosnian Muslims (that later changed their name into "Bosniacs") and with the Montenegrins. The way they declared their language had other courses, but I leave them to tell their story.
Kubura
15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The following paragraph is confusing:
Pronunciation and vocabulary differs among dialects spoken within Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia themselves. Each larger region has its own pronunciation and it is reasonably easy to guess where a speaker is from by their accent and/or vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary can be particularly different from the official standards.
This is one of the arguments for claiming it is all one and the same language: there are more differences within the territories of the official languages themselves than there are between the standards (all of which inherit from the standards established in Yugoslavian times, when Serbo-Croatian was the official language). This is not surprising, of course, for if the lines between the languages were drawn not politically but linguistically, then there would be no continuum at all. As Pavle Ivić explains, the continuous migration of Slavic populations during the five hundred years of Turkish rule has scattered the local dialects all around.
It looks like the author meant to argue that there is a dialect continuum across the three countries, but what he says is the opposite! FilipeS 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Olaf, please see the 221,000 GHits for forms of "srećan" (in Cyrillic, to stick only to Serbian results) and 30,900 for forms of "sretan" (which include many unrelated Macedonian results, as a bonus) before trying to impose your opinion on a language apparently foreign to you. Thanks. Duja ► 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of tvornica being used in Serbian [8]-- Hadžija 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
However, most words are well understood, or even occasionally used, in other languages; in most cases, common usage favors one variant while the other(s) are regarded as "imported", archaic, dialectal or simply, more rarely used.
Well, the main problem is that Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are one language (whatever one chooses to call it), whose dialects overlap between the supposed "languages", making an article about the differences between Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian difficult to write. All three have ijekavski in common for a start... -- Hadžija 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thread, бај д веј.-- Hadžija 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ser, Cro and Bos are one language...". Hadžija, don't spread your wishes here.
E.g., if you think that word like "tvornica", "mrkva", "ljestve" (!!??) were in use by Serbs, than why don't you try it this way: correct every Serb in speech when he/she says "fabrika", "šargarepa", "merdevine" and tell them that they're wrong, that they should say "tvornica, mrkva, ljestve". Tell them: "Ne kaže se merdevine već ljestve". And so on.
Kubura
15:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
We should re-formulate that blockquote "However, most words are well understood, or even occasionally used, in other languages; in most cases, common usage favors one variant while the other(s) are regarded as "imported", archaic, dialectal or simply, more rarely used."
"Common usage" regards other forms as "archaic, dialectal"??? Where? By whom?
Kubura
14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the part with the Google link - I'm not getting it. I give up.
But this part wasn't properly answered: Who considers one variant as "imported, archaic, dialectal"?
Kubura
17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
People, your boldness is appreciated, but arbitrary page moving is a Bad Thing. Please list the article in WP:RM if you want the article at a different title, and let the concensus develop. I don't have any particular preference for the title, but I don't want to fix the ton of double redirects screwed by someone else. Duja ► 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
People, we should consider a rename proposal soon. The title should be:
Differences between standard "Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian" (language names ordered alphabetically, added Montenegrin language).
The official page of Montenegrin government
[9] in English offers "mother tongue" page as "Montenegrin language" (see button named crnogorski). Not to mention the attitude of Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts. And
of Montenegrin P_E_N_ Centre.
Kubura
16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This was the language policy in former Yugoslavia.
See this link from the Croatian Institute of Language and Linguistics
Problemi jezične politike:
Zaključci radnog dogovora predstavnika centralnih komiteta SK Bosne i Hercegovine, Crne Gore,
Hrvatske i Srbije i pokrajinskih komiteta SK Kosova i Vojvodine o aktualnim problemima jezika i jezične politike na srpskohrvatskom/hrvatskosrpskom, hrvatskom ili srpskom govornom području [dvotjednik "Oko", 1986].
See the section 2. "... Negativne, društveno neprihvatljive pojave u jeziku, jezičnoj politici i jezičnom planiranju na srpskohrvatskom govornom području, koje se često ispoljavaju u vidu jezičnog nacionalizma..."
"...Stoga je potrebno... temeljito i svestrano razmotriti stanje i aktualne probleme jezika i jezične politike i iznaći najefikasnije forme djelovanja, međusobne suradnje i koordinacije aktivnosti organa i organizacija SKJ, SSRNJ, SSJ, SSOJ, državnih organa i organizacija i drugih organiziranih društvenih snaga u području nauke, javnog informiranja, izdavačke djelatnosti i odgojno-obrazovne djelatnosti.
Ta aktivnost mora se jasno određivati protiv separatističkih i unitarističkih tendencija u području jezika, a za afirmaciju bratstva i jedinstva i jezičnog zajedništva Crnogoraca, Hrvata, Muslimana, Srba i drugih, tj. za afirmaciju jezične politike koja uspostavlja sklad između nedvojbene jednosti srpskohrvatskog/hrvatskosrpskog, hrvatskog ili srpskog standardnog (književnog) jezika i njegove varijantne razudenosti, takvog jezičnog zajedništva koje ne ugrožava jedinstvo kulturnog života nijedne nacije i nijedne sociokulturne sredine, već ga, naprotiv, osigurava."
"...Negativne tendencije u području jezika posebno su došle do izraza u posljednje vrijeme tako da se može govoriti o eskalaciji jezičnog nacionalizma, koji se manifestira:
- u praktičnom razdvajanju našeg jezika na srpski i hrvatski (u nastavi na nekim stranim sveučilištima),
- u isto takvom razdvajanju jezika u međunarodnim dokumentacijskim klasifikacijama,
- u izdavanju rječnika, odnosno priručnika posebno za hrvatski, posebno za srpski (srpskohrvatski) jezik,
- u zlonamjernim i neistinitim prikazivanjima naše jezične situacije u pojedinim enciklopedijama, knjigama i studijama širom svijeta itd. ..."
Kubura
11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Montenegrins use words:
Momisan, Crna Gora, are you kidding???
Predominant use of Latin letters? Since when?
I had the opportunity to watch Montenegrin TV programme before and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but I've never heard (nor seen) that.
Kubura
18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Both "osoba" and "lice"? That's something completely new to me. In last 20 years, I haven't heard Montenegrins use "osoba" (with derivatives: osobno...). Kubura 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't use either one in colloquial speech, but both words are equally known and used somewhat in written language. As far as the derivates are concerned, only those of "lice" are used(e.g. Ličnost,lično...) Sideshow Bob 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Montenegrin is your mother tongue, who are we to question that?
Čovik uči dok je živ.
Still, those data surprised me. Personally, I wouldn't dare to use those words in Montenegro.
Kubura
15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, no one says "nogomet"(except for some older people who still sometimes use it- I've heard it from my grandfather, a Montenegrin from Riječka nahija :). Anyway, it is not widely used at all, so I don't think it should be in the article. Also, the word "neodgojen" is not used whatsoever. Sideshow Bob 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"'Osoba' perfectly normal Serbian"???
Duja, ostali... jeste li vi to mene uhvatili u đir? Are you kidding with me? Is this some kind of hidden camera?
"Nogomet", "osoba", "tvornica"... are now "also used", "perfectly normal" in Serbian in Montenegrin language?
Where you were when I had problems (discussions, threats, almost "fights"!) with (Bosnian and Serbian) Serbs and Montenegrins (and Bosniaks; they used "srpski ili hrvatski"), when I served the federal army, because I refused to use words like "fudbal", "vaspitanje", "lice" (I've spoken about the "dizalo za 4 osobe", and they wanted me to say "lift za 4 lica"), "fabrika" in my communication (both official and unofficial)?
Not to mention what kind of "earwashing" had Croatian Serbs (especially ones from areas that weren't the leading ones in rebellion, warmongering and anti-Croat rhetoric); the previously mentioned "attackers" thought of those Serbs that they were Croats or, if they knew that these are Serbs, treated those Serbs like they "betrayed Serb cause" or "pro-Croatian", "pro-Tudjman", "pro-ustashi" (!), "anti-Yugoslav".
Younger generations won't understand this, neither foreigners, but older generations 'll exactly know what I've meant and what I've said.
Kubura
19:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Odgoj "typical"?? Where?
As I know, using of words "osoba, odgoj, tvornica" in Serbia, as well as in ex-YU republics that had "Serbo-Croat language" as official was considered as Croat provocation, even "ustashi"(!). Bunch of texts were written (in Serb language), with those words as subject of mocking, or those words were used in negative, derrogative context ("...pa neka "gospoda" "bojovnici" "odgajaju" "osobe" u svojoj "demokraciji"). Duja, you're older, I don't have to prove you this, you had opportunity to read, see and hear such texts in all Serbian and Montenegrin media.
Kubura
09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop POV-ing, please. You may fool outer world, but you can't fool those who lived in SFRY. I've read a bunch of newspapers, magazines, seen a thousands of hours of materials produced in Serb language/officially called "Serbocroat" (which in fact was Serb language) (or subtitled in that language): films, documentaries, educational programme, sports games broadcasts, TV-news and journals (over TV Beograd, TV Novi Sad, TV Titograd, TV Sarajevo). Not to mention that I talked with speakers of that language a lot of times. For those words you say that "are in use in Serb language"... the Serbs I've talked to, didn't know what words mean(???!!) or, in other case, considered them as "Croat words" (see my experiences from above).
Argument about prekrižiti... it's a lie. Crosswords are called "ukrštene reči" or "ukrštenica" in Serb language.
About osoba... ton of words 've been written here. "Lice" solely as "face" (except few examples????) ??? Gimme a break! Serbs are very eager to say "meni osobno" instead of "meni lično", isn't it? Or "osoblje", not "personal"?
Nobody mentioned "željezo" here. Željezo and gvozd appear in Croat and in Serb language.
I've heard about nevaspitana deca, vaspitno-popravni dom, moralno-političko vaspitanje. I've never heard Serbs using odgajati or odgoj in any form.
"Nogomet" and "Croat monthforms" in Serb language? Where that comes from? Maybe through yours declaring of Illyrian language (other, one of older synonyms for Croat language) as Serb?
Pax, you are continuing your policy of argumenting that something is Serbian/belongs to Serbs, just by declaring it. Things don't work that way here.
Kubura
14:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not mention the Bunjevac language? -- PaxEquilibrium 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's finally the time to archive this page, its over 100 kb's long.
Second, shall we make new sections in the article, sections regarding the differences in terminology in certain areas? (Razlike u znanstvenom i stručnom nazivlju).
Kubura
12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Šargarepa" is more used in Serbia ("we" are also only saying "šargarepa"), but "mrkva" can be used too. Look at the sources:
http://www.bosna.unas.cz/slovnik.html
(srpski ekavski: šargarepa, mrkva / hrvatsk iijekavski: mrkva / bosanski ijekavski: mrkva)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/serbo-croatian/mrkva
(Croatian mrkva carrot.
Serbian (Latin Script) mrkva carrot.
etc.)
"Sretan" is SURE also used in Serbia and therefore I don't need sources (ja ne govorim hrvatski ili bosanski, srpski je moj maternji jezik). I'm from Serbia (not from BiH or Hr) and
we are always saying "sretan". Please do NOT delete the word “sretan” again. It is really not necessary (and it's out of order) to make the differences between the languages bigger as they are!
[Edit:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sretan
Bosnian Sretan happy.
Croatian sretan fortunate, happy.
Serbian (Latin Script) sretan glad.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sre%25C4%2587an
Serbian (Latin Script) srećan auspicious, blessed, fortunate, happy, happy-go-lucky, lucky, prosperous, successful
Another source:
http://www.krstarica.com/dictionary/index.php?u=sretan]
Pronouns (Editwar):
Serbian language:
"Gdje/Gde ćeš biti?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da budeš?"
"Gdje/Gde ćeš ići?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da ideš?"
Both versions are correct, so it is enough to mention the first sentence, but it's wrong to mention ONLY the second sentence.
172.180.86.246
13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken shouldn't the title be "Differences among standard Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. Since there are more than two? At the same time change the languages to alphabetical order since this order does not make sense. In the first sentence the order is alphabetical. Thanks, Vseferović 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Among other things English description for "kuda" and "kamo" strikes me as odd and imprecise:
Kamo has answers in these adverbs:ovamo, tamo, onamo, with similar English translations, but these adverbs refere to the certain side, wider area, meaning here (on my side), there (on your side), there (neither by my side nor by your side).
Simple English translation of "gd(j)e?" but be "where" whereas "kuda?" and "kamo?" would be translated as "where to?". English-equivalent examples of use of "gd(j)e":
Examples for "kuda" and "kamo"?
Consequently, answers to "gd(j)e" would be "in/on/at/by something" or similar (possibly but not necessarily related to here/there stuff) and answers to "kuda" and "kamo" would begin with to, towards, etc.
--
Aleksandar Šušnjar
21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
One more thing... it actually isn't important to describe differences in meanings between "gde" and "kuda/kamo" within the scope of this article. The only thing that may need to be explained is how common are uses of "kuda" and "kamo"... -- Aleksandar Šušnjar 14:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another thing... I checked "kuda" translation with Morton Benson dictionary and it is translated to English as "where to" - same as I translated it above. "Kamo" is translated as "1. see kuda 2. see gde 3. ~ (sreće) if only; ...". But I realized that there is probably more to it, as I use both "kuda" and "kamo" - it just 'clicked' that they are different. Specifically, to me "kuda" actually does not question the destination but the path, as in "Which way are you taking (to get somewhere)?". "Kamo", on the other hand, only implies destination question (to me), not which way is taken. Something like this:
-- Aleksandar Šušnjar 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I am serbian and yes we do use the latin script as well as the cyrillic script. We can read and understand croatian perfectly including the minor differences you listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.31.83 ( talk) 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved pagename to this version, in alphabetical order. First goes B, then goes C, and finally goes S. Kubura ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
There's one mistake.
At first sight, it may seem all OK. But, AFAIK, at least for Croatian, the active form is being preferred, not the passive form (as it is the case in Germanic and Romanic languages). Passive form is used mostly when it cannot be avoided, in order to avoid double meanings (for that reason, it appears mostly in iuristic stuff), or to be more polite (active form is too direct, it may sound too imposing).
So, "Nitko ne smije biti držan u ropstvu..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije držati u ropstvu..." and "Nitko ne smije biti podvrgnut mučenju..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije podvrgnuti...".
Kubura (
talk)
09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing:-whoever removed my previous post on the same topic on this page, should know that it's an act of violence, and if we all start being violent, everyone can change or remove parts of wikipedia that he/she doesn't like. That is not ok, and it might lead to a chaos on wikipedia. Personally I have a few posts in mind, and nothing will stop me from removing or changing them if I find any of my recent posts removed again. There are many ways to change or get a new IP address in case of banning, so let's be more civilized and stop the vandalism. With respect to this wikipedia. Cheers. 24.86.127.209 ( talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fut.Perf.; First, thanks for your objective thinking this time, and second, I think that my post is just representing an opinion about A FACT, a very well known fact about how similar the 3 standards of the SerboCroatian Language are, something that finally can be publically seen by putting a text sample on the article's page. This fact has been constantly ignored and overlooked just by a few persons like Kubura, and he is absolutely the last one on this world who should suggest something to be done on the SerboCroatian language discussion page. Kubura's posts on any discussion page (mostly on pages about Croatia, ex-Yugoslavia etc.) are full of POVs, full of ignorance to the real facts of the things and full of presenting the well known lies and nonsense of the defeated croatian nationalistic propaganda from the last century. So, please consider all this above in your 'dealings' with Kubura and the 2-3 other croatian members with similar 'ideas' like him, because although lately they seems to be 'changing' and being more accepting to the reality out of their world, still I would be very cautious with them, because a wise proverb says:'The wolf changes his fur, but not his mind'. Best Regards. 24.86.127.209 ( talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker, but I still miss the variants for bread. I thought that they were characteristic. I cannot add them because I do not know what to do with the Bosnian. Andreas (T) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)