|
 |
Serbo-Croatian | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Ryder Diglot Groupie Norway Joined 6595 days ago 67 posts - 70 votes  Speaks: Norwegian, Russian* Studies: English, French | Message 17 of 96 23 April 2007 at 9:11am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Would you say Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are different dialects of Serbo-croatian?
And what about Macedonian, Montenegrin and Slovenian? Do they differ much from Serbo-Croatian? 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 18 of 96 23 April 2007 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Yes and no...
I doubt whether BCS are merely dialects of Serbo-Croatian. That implies that Serbo-Croatian is a type of super-language from which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian versions are subordinate. If anything it's the other way around as it was the speech of some Bosnians, a few Croats and some Serbs and Montenegrins that formed the base of Serbo-Croatian when it arose in the 19th century. In other words, Serbo-Croatian began as a sort of hybrid language from a dialectal group called "štokavsko-ijekavski" which was used in far southeastern Croatia, eastern Bosnia, western Montenegro and southwestern Serbia. It was only afterwards that the original Serbo-Croatian hybrid started to become less uniform and everyone had a hand in its linguistic undoing but for the sake of staying on topic I won't go into the details here. I also believe that it depends on how you use the term "Serbo-Croatian." "Serbo-Croatian" (in Serbia and much of the outside world) or "Croatian or Serbian" (in Croatia) was an official language of Yugoslavia. In many ways, it is a logical connection since the combined term acknowledges the fact that the means of oral and written communication (I hestitate to use the words "languages" or "variants" here) that Serbs and Croats and Bosnians used are very similar and in a way the term Serbo-Croatian is reminiscent to encountering terms such as Malayo-Indonesian or Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani). In no way do these compounded terms imply identity, but some people contend otherwise. I often say that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are different from each other. However, I hesitate to call them separate languages since by this logic we should then say that "English" doesn't exist either and that we have "American", "Australian", "British", "Canadian", etc. which I think is farcial. This concept of languages with different standards isn't new and can also be seen with French, German, Portuguese and Spanish. Most native speakers of these languages regardless of where they're from say that they speak "français", "Deutsch", "portuguesa" or "español" and only qualify their particular form of speech if they want to remind outsiders about their differences from others or are especially proud of their origin from a particular region or country. At the same time, in a certain way I'm not fully confident about calling Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as identical "languages", since no one would say that Britons and Americans speak the same "language" per se. The appearance of Montenegrin follows the logic of creating Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. If Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia have separate languages, then why not Montenegro? The native speech of most Montenegrins is štokavsko-ijekavski and thus it has the same basis as standard Croatian and is virtually indistinguishable from the speech of some neighbouring Bosnians and Serbs. It remains to be seen how much Montenegrin will diverge from the neighbouring dialects in a few centuries. Slovenian was different from Serbo-Croatian and still is from BCS. There are a few dialects in northwestern Croatia that are indistinguishable from dialects in southeastern Slovenia (i.e. dialectal continuum), but the standard languages are quite different, and mutual intelligibility between the two has never been very high. Because of the dominance of Serbo-Croatian during the existence of Yugoslavia, most Slovenes gained at least a passive understanding of Serbo-Croatian, but not the other way around. The situation of Macedonian is contentious and in some ways worse than the relationship between Croatian and Serbo-Croatian. Macedonian and Bulgarian are quite similar and many Bulgarians consider Macedonian to be a Bulgarian dialect (i.e. subordinate to standard Bulgarian). Indeed some Bulgarians go so far as to claim that Macedonia should be part of Bulgaria. Many Macedonians unsurprisingly dispute this and value their independence today. In addition, the Yugoslavian government encouraged a certain degree of independence by the Macedonians as it was a way of blunting Bulgarian claims to the area and helped to keep Macedonia under Belgrade's control. One of my friends in Zagreb told me that she could still understand more Macedonian than Bulgarian partially because Serbian influenced Macedonian while Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia. Macedonian has been different from Serbo-Croatian (and now standard BCS) but is quite similar not only to neighbouring Bulgarian dialects, but also southeastern Serbian dialects called "Torlak". 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6770 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 19 of 96 24 April 2007 at 1:23am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Well, Macedonian is generally considered the same language as Bulgarian, politics aside. It's quite different than Serbo-Croatian.
Edit: never mind, I missed one or two paragraphs of your post above. Edited by Captain Haddock on 24 April 2007 at 1:25am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| reineke Senior Member United States https://learnalangua Joined 6449 days ago 851 posts - 1008 votes Studies: German | Message 20 of 96 19 May 2007 at 12:46pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Chung, I find it interesting that you don't understand why people might get "unhinged" when discussing these issues even though you seem to possess a solid knowledge of the language and local culture. Comparisons between Canada and Australia are out of place. Maybe part of the problem lies in the fact that you mostly read about it, or looked at it from a distance. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing so effective as being shot at, or shelled on or any combination of the two, to get someone unhinged. The argument that the two languages are essentially the same has often been expanded by certain academics by adding that this common language is and should be called Serbian. According to this theory Croatians speak a variant of Serbian and Dubrovnik was hailed as a Serbian city. That is enough to get some very peaceloving Croatians unhinged.
Under first Yugoslavia Macedonia was considered Southern Serbia, and Macedonians "Southern Serbs." Bulgarians called it "Western Bulgaria". Needless to say Macedonians have gone through a lot of trials and tribulations. Linguistically this has been discussed to death. I do not intend to add to it. If you simply ask most people in the region what should languages spoken in Croatia/Serbia be called an overwhelming majority will tell you Croatian/Serbian. I think others should respect 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 21 of 96 19 May 2007 at 7:02pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Hi Reineke
You're right in that comparisons between Canada and Australia are unsuitable ONLY IF we look beyond language. However, for the sake of this thread I felt that it was better to focus on the linguistic side, and minimize non-linguistic factors. After all, as language students, we'd be more interested in comparing the grammar and phonology of the languages rather than the histories and relations between the speech communities. The shelling of Dubrovnik is naturally etched in the Croatian consciousness as yet another despicable deed by the Serbs just as Serbs list the flight of Serbs from Krajina as part of Croatian hostility to Serbs and continuation of Croatian policies from World War II. Would Jasenovac II be next? However, it's debatable whether outsiders questions and comments about language policy should instantly be linked and lead to tangents about the sometimes nasty deeds performed by Croats and Serbs on each other. I fully understand why Bosnians, Croats and Serbs can get touchy about identity of language. You're right in that I've had plenty of dealings with people from the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, I agree with your assertion that the claims about everyone in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia speaking the same language were used by various politicians to enforce unity and sometimes formed part of the platform for Greater Serbia. Interestingly, I've even heard a reverse of the argument from more nationalistic Croats. They say that the Serbs essentially took on a Croatian dialect as standard since the first Serbian standard had more in common with the speech of Dubrovnik that than what was used by the then-Serbian elite in Vojvodina. In addition, Croats didn't have a problem with the creation of the puppet state in World War II which included much of modern Bosnia. Questions about differences in the speech of local Bosnians and Herzegovinians from the Croatian standard were glossed over in the name of political power and territorial gain. After all, the Croatian government's reasoning held that Bosnians/Bosniaks were nothing but Muslim Croats and that any differences in speech between Bosnians and Herzegovinians could be passed off as minor and all part of Croatian. As someone who doesn't hail from the Balkans, I do still find it baffling that many people go beserk on hearing outsiders call their language virtually the same since it triggers reaction to events that have little to do with dry topics such as style, morphology, lexicon and phonology. I don't know about others, but I know very well that Bosnians, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs all differ from each other to varying degrees. From what I've observed everyone speaks something that mashes features from all three standards (i.e. "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian") plus their local dialect. For example, whenever I've chatted with Croats, I've often heard them use "šta" for 'what' even though I learned from my upstanding Croatian textbook that "što" is proper Croatian and that "šta" is used in Bosnian and Serbian. I asked my friends if I was hearing them right, and they confirmed that while the proper form is "što" as I've learned, it's very common for Croats to use a "non-Croatian" form and no one gives a damn. I don't have a problem with the labels per se, since they reflect a political reality. But I'll tell you that I even heard some people from the Balkans call their speech "our language" ('naš jezik') thus skirting around the issue of ethnic identity and trying to stay above the fray. The bottom line for me is that Bosnians, Croats and Serbs are different, but differentiating them on the basis of language isn't often the most reliable way. Moreover, when outsiders downplay the linguistic similarities or question the motives about emphasizing the differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, they AREN'T usually abusing the notion of the similarities as some politicians and linguists did in the 19th and 20th century nor are they making an oblique judgment about today's independence of the successor states as right or wrong. (For the record, I hold that the collapse of Yugoslavia makes sense given that it was flawed right from the beginning, and that all sides had a beef with each other, however latent.) More important differences between them exist in their collective historical memories and religion. Enforcing Herder's principle in the Balkans that each nation must have its own language has been a misguided and ultimately destructive policy. The results of Herder's belief comes out to me as: 1) Some Serbs' abuse of Karadzic's faulty observation that anyone who speaks štokavski must also be of the Serbian nation. 2) Anyone who doesn't speak Croatian in the way that is dictated by whoever is in charge must be disloyal to Croatia or to be singled out for expulsion from the Croatian nation. In the end for me, the humorous but most wise advice that I heard was from someone of mixed Croatian and Serbian heritage. She said that the wars are over and everyone should get over themselves, share some rakija and soak it up with burek. Enjoy the peace and at least civil relations for the time being instead of rehashing the latest war. Regards Chung 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| reineke Senior Member United States https://learnalangua Joined 6449 days ago 851 posts - 1008 votes Studies: German | Message 22 of 96 19 May 2007 at 9:04pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Lol I think some Croatians might have a problem with the term Balkans but that's their beef. One point I wanted to make was to look a little beyond linguistics. I would not refer to WWII concentration camps lightly, not to simply illustrate a point. I am very fond of burek, but I am more of a yogurt than rakija person. If I had to choose I'd gor for sljivovica. The point about Dubrovnik and SC was to illustrate why some Croatians wince and are perhaps more uptight about this issue even if we disregard the war. I was always fond of Karadjic and his big moustache. The term "naski" and varieties thereof is very old and has been used a lot especially at times when people were less ethnically conscious. During Jugoslavia the term "Jugoslavenski" was very liberally used. Judging who uses what form is a bit tricky as people mixed, travelled, watched each other's TV and lived all over the place. The reason for physical differences is more rooted in ancient forces and geography than it is related to the "original" look of either nation. I would imagine that Croatians vary in physical aspect the most. People in Slavonia look most Slavic, with round faces and ruddy cheeks lol but Dalmatians come in all shapes and sizes, from raven heads to blondies (why am I thinking about girls) while people from Hercegovina have their own particular features etc.
Not that I condone anyone going berserk on a foreigner but does that not serve as a bit of an indication what the languages should be called in both polite and impolite company? On one side you might hear ah, it's all the same, on the other you might actually upset someone. I don't think anyone has to enforce the term Croatian and Serbian on either population as both terms are used to refer to their language by an overwhelming majority of people not just "officially" but in everyday life. Calling someone a bad Croatian because of the way he speaks is obviously wrong but it was not an official "policy" even during Tudjman. It's more of a thing you would find on message boards or hear in a bar or from a snooty student of Croatian. The usual response would be to teach the offending party about a myriad of ways you can insult someone in "our language". Insisting on defunct Croatian words in official media was an official "policy" of course. Most people just laughed but they kept at it and little by little some words did come alive. I am actually fond of some. For others there's no hope. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Magnum Bilingual Triglot Retired Moderator Pro Member United States Joined 7119 days ago 359 posts - 353 votes Speaks: English*, Serbian*, French Studies: German Personal Language Map | Message 23 of 96 20 May 2007 at 2:44am | IP Logged | ||||||||
My understanding is that "što" means "why" and "šta" means what. "što" is a shortened version of "zašto". Think the difference between saying "šta je..." and "što je...". For all practical purposed, Serbian and Croatian are the same language. They are mutually understandable. The only difference is the alphabet. Serbs use ćirilica for the most part, but both use and understand latinica. 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 24 of 96 20 May 2007 at 7:44pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
As I learned in Croatian, the proper translation of "what?" is "što?". Bosnian and Serbian translate it as "šta?" Što ste radili? / Šta ste radili? However as I've posted earlier and later confirmed with Croats, it's very common to hear Croats instead use "šta?" regardless of the textbooks' prescription. From what I've gathered, using "što?" for "zašto?" occurs often in Bosnia and Serbia in colloquial settings. I didn't notice it when I was in Croatia, but in the future I'll see if I can pick it out.
See our posts from before... ;-) 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. |
