|
 |
Serbo-Croatian | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5275 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes  Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 73 of 96 20 January 2012 at 6:19am | IP Logged | ||||||||
It's a voiceless velar fricative, like Russian AND German AND Scottish English (whose h sound is classified as voiceless velar fricative in all three cases). And discussing intensity is not meaningless in the least, it IS less intense than in the other three languages I mentioned. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Fazla Hexaglot Senior Member Italy Joined 6264 days ago 166 posts - 255 votes Speaks: Italian, Serbo-Croatian*, English, Russian, Portuguese, French Studies: Arabic (classical), German, Turkish, Mandarin | Message 74 of 96 20 January 2012 at 11:41am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I won't get into the rest but if you want to avoid ethnic topics and debates please call Bosniaks as Bosniaks. You have every right to call whats yours as you wish, just show some respect to others if not only because there are Bosniaks like me on the forum. Thanks in advance. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5275 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 75 of 96 20 January 2012 at 3:49pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
No Fazla, there are obvious reasons why I would refuse to do so, and they needn't be set out here. I don't care to
turn this into THAT sort of discussion, but the abuse of language is one of the most dangerous things. It sets the stage for later, far more serious, phenomena. Names, labels, toponyms, ethnonyms, etc. are all important. We've seen that with the long debate between Greece and FYROM about FYROM's attempt to name itself after an ancient region of Greece and then to establish some sort of continuity from the ancient (Hellenic) Macedonians, with whom they have none. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Fazla Hexaglot Senior Member Italy Joined 6264 days ago 166 posts - 255 votes Speaks: Italian, Serbo-Croatian*, English, Russian, Portuguese, French Studies: Arabic (classical), German, Turkish, Mandarin | Message 76 of 96 20 January 2012 at 6:14pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
It's incredible how first you write something like this
"Just like saying my parents were from ex-Yugoslavia was a way to evade saying they are Serbian, because saying that in educated circles in the oh-so-tolerant US in the 1990s and even today was pretty much tantamount to confessing membership in a Waffen SS division. So virulent was the propaganda and hostility. " and then you acknowledge how you consciously refuse to call my people with its only real name in English because it just pisses you off so much that now it's not Belgrade anymore who gets to decide how can we call ourselves? Just start living in 2012 already: we are Bosniaks and that's the only name that we have in English. You are just proving to people on this forum how yes indeed it's all about propaganda and unnatural hostility from the world against poor peace loving Serbs.... right. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5275 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 77 of 96 20 January 2012 at 6:52pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Fazla, I haven't said anything insulting. Your own people called themselves Muslims for DECADES before they called themselves Bosniaks. "Bosniak" was a neologism (actually a revived one, since it was used in a non-ethnic sense by the Ottoman empire at times) dredged up by Muhamed Filipovic in 1993 or 1994 I believe. The intent is clear: to portray Bosnian Serbs and Croats as less native to Bosnia than the Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. Sorry, that won't fly. I like that stab at Belgrade, too. As if Tito - who created the title Muslimani (ethnic group) instead of muslimani (religious group) in 1968 - were a Serb. A Croat-Slovene explant who exterminated the Belgrade elite in 1944, created autonomous regions of dubious validity only in Serbia but no where else, imposed a Montenegrin identity on all people in Montenegro, purposefully codified the modern Macedonian language based on dialects that were the farthest from southern Serbian, not to mention many other grievances - is now supposed to be proof of Belgrade hegemony. Unreal! I'm out of here. The tensions are always close to the surface on these topics, but the days of delusional Brotherhood and Unity and the Goli Otok gulag and Titoist lies that held Yugoslavia together are thankfully over. I can't abide the lies and when I speak the truth some people don't like that. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7158 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 78 of 96 20 January 2012 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
The irony with this reasoning is that Croatian and Serbian linguists usually insist on the term "Bošnjački jezik" (Bosniak) rather than "Bosanski jezik" (Bosnian) per most Bosnian linguists' preference. The latter group's thinking goes that each country/piece of turf must have a corresponding language name. If Hrvatska and Srbija can have "hrvatski" and "srpski", then why can't there be "bosanski" for Bosna (i Hercegovina)? The Croats and Serbs don't see it this way since somehow they've come to feel that calling it "Bosanski" must also refer to the language of the self-identified Croats and Serbs in Bosnia and that it somehow "denies" the linguistic background of those Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs by labelling "their language" as "Bosanski". Painting "Bosniak" as some kind of neologism meant to marginalize a certain set of people is at odds with the dynamics of the dispute (at least on the linguistic side). The Wikipedia articles also reflect this dichotomy in usage (and the implication for 'Bosniak' and 'Bosnian') with Croatian and Serbian articles for "Bošnjački jezik" versus the Bosnian one calling it "Bosanski jezik".
Wow. It sounds just like what I heard from a former classmate in high school who was fiercely proud of his Serbian parentage but had spent his entire life in the arms of the Serbian diaspora in Chicago. Edited by Chung on 20 January 2012 at 7:27pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5275 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 79 of 96 20 January 2012 at 8:29pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I don't know what the linguists say, I just know how I feel about the name issue and it's probably not far from how Greeks feel about the Macedonia name issue. Perhaps I wouldn't feel that way if it hadn't been the case - repeatedly - during the 1990s and still today that Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats were portrayed as invaders rather than autochthonous ethnic groups fighting for their own territory in land they had inhabited since time immemorial - and many centuries before the arrival of Islam to the area. It's time our terminology in discussing these issues reflect the reality of three ethnic groups defined primarily by religious affiliation (personal or ancestral) and all three are equally native to the area racially and have equal rights to self-determination. The fact that Serbs also have Serbia and Croats also have Croatia in no way negates the right of Serbs and Croats in Bosnia to self-determination. The fact that Bosnian Muslims have increasingly identified themselves in a regional sense is not particularly surprising, 1.) because their religious identity first gave them a sense of ethnonational separation from their Christian neighbors during the days of the religiously - but not ethnically - discriminatory Ottoman Empire; and 2.) because as their religious observance declines and they increasingly reflect on that fact that religion generally doesn't define a nation (Pakistan being a rare exception), they must grasp for something else. But what? They are unable to trace a continuous cultural line from some ancient people, as has been attempted (dubiously, I might add) with Albanians>Illyrians and Slavic Macedonians>ancient (Hellenic) Macedonians. Nor does their language objectively differ from that of their Serb and Croat neighbors (their Bosnian/Bosniak language notwithstanding). So what to do? Use the name of the region Bosnia as a way to affirm your (uniquely?) indigenous status, even while passing down this identity through identification with Islamic faith and practice. And then, when the time comes, some 50 years down the line and perhaps the demographics are even more in your favor, you explain that the Serb and Croat invaders have no place in Bosnia and can go back to Serbia and Croatia if they don't like being ruled by Bosniak Sarajevo. As for your second comment, I have nothing to say other than that it would probably be best to carry on discussions of history and ethnicity by private messages/mail since certain offendable parties are liable to get angry otherwise. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Delodephius Bilingual Tetraglot Senior Member Yugoslavia Joined 5405 days ago 342 posts - 501 votes Speaks: Slovak*, Serbo-Croatian*, EnglishC1, Czech Studies: Russian, Japanese | Message 80 of 96 20 January 2012 at 8:36pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Well I use Bosniak to refer to Muslim Bosnians. And I refer to Macedonians as
Macedonians because they do indeed have descent from the Ancient Macedonians, despite the fact the A. Macedonians didn't speak a Slavic language. After all, Southern Slavs only have about 10-20% "Slavic" genes and they're all practically descendants of the ancient inhabitants of Balkans. The so called "Slavic Migration" was rather a small invasion and imposition of the Common Slavic language on the locals, while the invading Slavs merged with these locals beyond recognition. Only their names survive, which ironically aren't even Slavic but Iranian (Serb, Croat) and Turkic (Bulgar), after the elite class which ruled over the Slavic speaking warriors and commoners. Common Slavic was the Lingua Franca of most of East-Central Europe at the time, and it was the official language of for example the Avar, the Khazar and the Rus khaganate, despite their elites speaking Turkic or Germanic languages. Some linguists theorize that the Gothic kingdoms were the first to utilized Common Slavic as a Lingua Franca and after the Hun invasion it spread throughout East-Central Europe as the LF of the Hun Empire. To me that sounds as the most reasonable theory as I have spent years trying to figure out the mystery of the spread of the Slavic language. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
