From Serbocroatian to Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian... maybe back?
 |
| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | | User | Thread poster: Fabio Descalzi From Serbocroatian to Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian... maybe back? |
|---|
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ 
Belgium
Bosnian to French
+ ...
MODERATOR | | No need for a permission | Oct 22, 2007 |
Alan R King wrote:
Miroslav Starovlah wrote:
[...] a basic logic tells me that in order to listen and take part in a discussion on the diversity of the Spanish language, for instance, I would at least need to know something [...] |
|
Of course I know SOMETHING, Miroslav. I am a linguist, also interested in sociolinguistic issues, minority language issues, language planning, language typology and the European linguistic area, inter alia. Furthermore, I am quite interested in politics and current affairs.
I think knowing SOMETHING about the linguistic situation in the Balkans is to be expected of any reasonably cultured linguist, especially anyone with the range of interests mentioned. Linguists often discuss or hear about the Balkan languages for various reasons. For one thing, as the standard, textbook exemplification of the concept of Sprachbund and a "laboratory" for theories of areal linguistics. For another, as a region of notable interest to sociolinguists and language planners; this would include, for example, readings about the linguistic development and ideological issues associated with Serbian vs. Croatian on the one hand, and the development of Serbo-Croat on the other.
The individual languages spoken in the Balkan Peninsula can also be of scholarly or practical interest to someone like me for a variety of reasons. Slavic languages, Greek (Ancient and Modern), Romanian (as an outlying Romance language), Albanian (as the representative of a specific branch of Indo-European), Turkish influence... The Balkans also play a crucial role in the past and present of Romani. Jewish populations of various parts of the Balkans, some Ashkenazi (speaking Yiddish) and many Sephardi (speaking Judeo-Spanish) have also played their parts on the stage of the ethnic history of the Balkans.
Last but not least, if one is at all an educated person and at all interested in current affairs and if one was already an adult in the 1980s and 1990s, then one will have had many, many reasons (some sadder than others) to learn SOMETHING about the Balkans, Balkan history, peoples, politics etc. etc.
Is that enough? You misunderstood me, Miroslav, I didn't say I knew nothing about the Balkans, I only said I am not an EXPERT, and I repeat that I am not one, and I also said that I was happy to be corrected by someone knowing more than I about the subject.
Can I take part in the discussion, please? 
Cheers,
Alan |
|
Having a different opinion about something doesn't make you less expert.
Today problem in the Balkans is that linguists are more nationally and politically oriented than linguistically.
Check out the profiles of some of the translators from the Balkans region and former Yugoslavia and you will be puzzled by the fact that some don't declare that they speak/understand (translate from/into) either Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian. In other words it seems that some are afraid to "advertize" their neighbor's / neighbors' language(s).
As far as your posts are concerned, not speaking a given language but being aware of its existence doesn't mean that you have no right to express your opinion as a linguist on the subject. At least you are not discussing politics.
Cheers 
[Edited at 2007-10-24 10:17]
 
| | | | Fabio Descalzi
Uruguay
 Member (2004)
German to Spanish
+ ...
Moderator of this forum | | Joshua Wolfe
Canada
French to English
+ ...
| | Is there a need to translate between Sebrocroatian, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian | Nov 14, 2007 |
First a disclaimer: I can only speak 2 languages (EN and FR), with a nodding acquaintance with Spanish, Esperanto, Yiddish and Russian. I know nothing of the Southern Slavic languages.
My first question is simple: do the languages listed in the header require translation? (I would also ask the same question of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, but that is off-topic).
Of course I know that my question is simplistic, and the answer will be "it depends" -- but what I am getting at is whether their differences/similarities are more like [US English & UK English], or like [Canadian French (Québécois) & French French], or like [Italian & Spanish], or like [the so-called dialects of Chinese: Cantonese & Mandarin].
If they require translation, were they once mutually intelligible without translation? Did Tito speak Croatian with a Serbian accent, or Bosnian with a Croato-Serbian accent? Or did he speak pure ---- ?
| | | | Dragomir Kovacevic
Italy
Member
Italian to Serbian
+ ...
|
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ wrote:
I remember that Serbocroatian didn't really have one standard, but four. Zagreb, Sarajevo, Belgrade and Titograd spoken variants. Remember TV news on national channels in former Yugoslavia? |
|
this what you are saying, is completelly untrue.
to make a point between "lahko" and "lako", like something so utterly important, is also a stressing of some tiny local differences, which in the country of my living, italy, exist from town to a town and nobody is boasting about speaking some variant, besides a normal existence of dialects.
please demystify things to other colleagues. you are constantly on the point of saying that bosgnachki language is a real, genuine language. come on! it is one of our dear localisms.
i say: bosgnachki, since imposing it to be "bosnian" as a country is bosnia, will never be accepted. why?
because some of our ex-yugoslav countries left after the "yugoslav regime" as you say, are created on high principles, civil principles, and not national ones. yugoslavia was created not as a nation-country. bosnia, likewise, is not a nation-country.
so, please do demystify, said.
pozdrav, dk
[Edited at 2008-05-09 21:31]
| | | | Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ
Belgium
Bosnian to French
+ ...
MODERATOR |
Dragomir Kovacevic wrote:
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ wrote:
I remember that Serbocroatian didn't really have one standard, but four. Zagreb, Sarajevo, Belgrade and Titograd spoken variants. Remember TV news on national channels in former Yugoslavia? |
|
this what you are saying, is completelly untrue.
to make a point between "lahko" and "lako", like something so utterly important, is also a stressing of some tiny local differences, which in the country of my living, italy, exist from town to a town and nobody is boasting about speaking some variant, besides a normal existence of dialects.
please demystify things to other colleagues. you are constantly on the point of saying that bosgnachki language is a real, genuine language. come on! it is one of our dear localisms.
i say: bosgnachki, since imposing it to be "bosnian" as a country is bosnia, will never be accepted. why?
because some of our ex-yugoslav countries left after the "yugoslav regime" as you say, are created on high principles, civil principles, and not national ones. yugoslavia was created not as a nation-country. bosnia, likewise, is not a nation-country.
so, please do demystify, said.
pozdrav, dk
[Edited at 2008-05-09 21:31] |
|
Evo hljeba mi, here is my demystification you asked for:
It seems to me, unless I live in wrong time period, that millions of people within Bosnia and in diaspora have the right to question their identity and freedom to choose not to be what others would like to impose. Unfortunately, those very right and freedom, they didn't have them in the "(whose?) civil principles" Yugoslavia.
Likewise, they have exactly the same right to call their language according to their identity and everyday spoken and written language, and not to the standard of their cousins and closely related neighbors.
If in former Yugoslavia your language or nationality had been disrespected or considered as unexisting, today you most probably would be speaking just like me and million others whose rights had been taken away and had no choice but to follow what had been imposed.
As we all know, from socio-linguistical point of view, human beings evolve and divide throughout history in nations, countries, etc. As far as I know every nation must have started one day or another and each have their particularity. Taking into account world history, it would be wrong to assume that no nation is based on their country. The perfect example that could illustrate the latter is the American nation and the creation of the USA? Indeed, we all know that Americans speak English and not American. Nevertheless what we don't know is what will happen in 100 years. It is quite a young nation, compared to the Balkanic states. One day or another their language could be officially called American. More and more we make a distinction between British English and American English, until one day the word English becomes unnecessary, maybe even odd in the American variant.
Just like any nation throughout world history, hasn't Serbian nation too, for example, started to exist one day? During the establishment of the Serbian nation and civilization, they most probably had also encountered many problems before detaching themselves from other Slavs. It would be foolish to believe that they evolved directly from Homo Sapiens to the Serbian nation with their respective language? The same goes for churchgoers, it would be not very convincing, theologically speaking, to believe that God created human beings by nations, and among those nations the Serbian nation. Were Adam and Eve concerned about their nationality in Genesis?
The truth of the matter is that times change and despite the fact that Bosnians have been existing for 1000 years, some still try to take that right to existence away. You probably will disagree with some historical facts, so I will not go there any further. However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that whether we want it or not, we live now and today. Thus, given all the facts above, my question is simple: why now and today millions of people wouldn't have the right to create their nation and language just like any nation in the world did? Who is going to stop them and what for?
I've been wrongly accused of saying untrue things about my linguistical experience in former Yugoslavia! If what I said is wrong I demand a clear explanation concerning schooling educational system in former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, where I was not allowed to use neither the words "milijun" or "krumpir" nor "takodje" or "juce" nor "sjutra" or "nijesam". In my humble opinion, this was enough to consider that there was not one and only standard.
Likewise, it goes without saying that I could certainly not use "lahko" instead of "lako". And this has nothing to do with false and tiring accusations that Bosnians put the sound "h" everywhere in their words, but with the fact that it was closer to the Old Slavonic language. Forcing ones to use only the one and not the other is just like forcing an American to write "neighbour, colour, railways..." instead of "neighbor, color, railroad,...".
Indeed, only one letter or sometimes a whole word changes, but yet they are two different standards and you cannot mix them. And as a matter of fact they come from the same language - English. Equally, "lako" i "lahko" come from the same common language "(South) Slavic" and not exclusively one of the monopolized South Slavic so called nation languages.
For you, my dear colleague Dragomir, these are but the details, and I see your point, nonetheless, believe me when there are too many such details, people start to question their standard, their language and their identity. And especially in cases when people know they exist and others try to convince them that they don't exist. In other words, dear colleague Dragomir, if I am not Bosnian and if I don't speak Bosnian, could you please tell me who am I and which language do I speak, as millions of people who are in the same situation as I am?
| | | | Dragomir Kovacevic
Italy
Member
Italian to Serbian
+ ...
| | 7 atoms of the body of Giulius Caesar | May 10 |
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ wrote:
It seems to me, unless I live in wrong time period, that millions of people within Bosnia and in diaspora have the right to question their identity and freedom to choose not to be what others would like to impose. |
|
you and your peoples are free to choose.
Unfortunately, those very right and freedom, they didn't have them in the "(whose?) civil principles" Yugoslavia. |
|
untrue. your peoples had all the rights. i'm speaking of the period "ante" 1992, of course. your people got a right and used for themselves, a national description: Muslimani, with the capital letter, although i'd say it was a bit unfortunate name. now your people are free in the sense of the words of one of the foreign commissioners, Wolfang Petrich, said in his farewell address: "before you weren't, but now you are free." your freedom is a freedom without others around you to bother you, it is a freedom in the sense of lack of responsability.
The truth of the matter is that times change and despite the fact that Bosnians have been existing for 1000 years, some still try to take that right to existence away. |
|
In my organism now there are at least 7 atoms of the body of Giulius Caesar.
...system in former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, where I was not allowed to use neither the words "milijun" or "krumpir" nor "takodje" or "juce" nor "sjutra" or "nijesam". |
|
untrue for the period "ante" 1992.
| | | | |
| Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ
Belgium
Bosnian to French
+ ...
MODERATOR |
Dragomir Kovacevic wrote:
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ wrote:
It seems to me, unless I live in wrong time period, that millions of people within Bosnia and in diaspora have the right to question their identity and freedom to choose not to be what others would like to impose. |
|
you and your peoples are free to choose. |
|
|
|
I meant in general that all people around the world have that freedom as long as they do not impose anything to others. Choosing one identity doesn't mean hating another, but simply being united independently in order to preserve the uniqueness rather than being absorbed by others and dissolve the particularities and the uniqueness that make one people a nation into another nation.
Unfortunately, those very right and freedom, they didn't have them in the "(whose?) civil principles" Yugoslavia. |
|
untrue. your peoples had all the rights. i'm speaking of the period "ante" 1992, of course. your people got a right and used for themselves, a national description: Muslimani, with the capital letter, although i'd say it was a bit unfortunate name. now your people are free in the sense of the words of one of the foreign commissioners, Wolfang Petrich, said in his farewell address: "before you weren't, but now you are free." your freedom is a freedom without others around you to bother you, it is a freedom in the sense of lack of responsability. |
|
In the period ante 1992 "my people" as you refer to, didn't have all the rights. I know, because those people had the choice (were forced) in former Yugoslavia to identify themselves as "Muslims" if they refused to identify themselves as Croats or Serbs. How absurd! This term was imposed. How would you feel if a political regime forces you to have Orthodox or Catholic nationality (which of course don't exist). Indeed, it is easier to call someone Muslim and then explain to him that there is no such nationality. And eventually instead of keepin on calling oneself "Muslim" psychologically end up cornered by the fact that indeed there isn't such a nationality and finally change it into respectively Serbian or Croatian nationality.
All in all, what I don't get is how come that the term "Muslim nationality" was commonly easier -yet more absurd- accepted than simply the term Bosnian which is religiousless -yet highly controversed by some (even today on this linguistical portal).
I am not saying that Yugoslav regime was a negative experience. Far from that. It managed to unite all of us. However, I am simply pointing out flaws which should have been discussed and repaired in -as you had perfectly well put - a civil principles state, just as it was done for Macedonian Republic and its inhabitants which were on the verge of being assimiliated to Bulgarians or Serbs.
The same civil principles apply to Montenegrins. If they had had the opportunity to choose their identity as Montenegrins and right to their language which they refer to as Montenegrin, Yugoslavia would have probably still been an example of compromise for the rest of the European Community, if not that, it would have at least survived as a State of confederated Yugoslav republics and we would have all most probably sing "Hej Slaveni" alongside other European Community members with their respective anthems.
The truth of the matter is that times change and despite the fact that Bosnians have been existing for 1000 years, some still try to take that right to existence away. |
|
In my organism now there are at least 7 atoms of the body of Giulius Caesar. |
|
What you are saying means also that there are as many, if not more atoms less of other nationality/ies or ethnicity. Nevertheless, even if I know that you are being ironic, I can't help but ask you what nationality are the atoms of human beings' bodies in general?
...system in former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, where I was not allowed to use neither the words "milijun" or "krumpir" nor "takodje" or "juce" nor "sjutra" or "nijesam". |
|
untrue for the period "ante" 1992. |
|
And I am telling you that my ante-1992-teachers considered the word "juce" as a mistake at school in Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The correct word and standard was (and still is) "jucer". Yet the absurdity was that be it "juce" or "jucer" both were considered as "Serbo-Croatian", well if that's not absurd, I don't know what it is then.
Of course we can think of the English example and say that both "color" and "colour" are also considered as simply English. Nonetheless, in English, you can at least say that one is American and the other British standard. But this couldn't be applied to Serbo-Croatian simply because we were living in the same country, as opposed to British and Americans.
How absurd would it be to say that "milijun" is Croatian Serbo-Croatian, "milion" Serbian Serbo-Croatian, "sjutra" Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian, "lahko" (inexisting in Serbo-Croatian dictionaries) Bosnian Serbo-Croatian -- yet all living in the same country and supposed to have the same educational system and study literature in Serbo-Croatian (which one?). In the same time ignoring those differences and acting as if there is only one standard, was in my humble opinion a mistake from the linguistical point of view.
Reducing those differences to regionalisms or dialects isn't justyfied, because those differences were officially used in each republic (except those terms which were attempted to be removed from then official dictionaries and lexicons), and each of those standard has also their "substandards" (kao/kano, putevi/putovi,...), dialects, regionalisms, etc.
All in all, I am convinced that the term "Serbo-Croatian" wasn't a careful and wise choice to name the language(s) spoken within former Yugoslavia. Another term should have been used, in which all of the locutors could have recognize themselves (why not "Yugoslavian" - "Jugoslavenski"? with four different official standards). I don't think this would be unjust to other South Slavic languages such as Slovene, Bulgarian and Macedonian, since they are referred to as "South Slavic" in English as opposed to "Yugoslavian" and as "Juzno Slavenski" in (potentially named) "Yugoslavian" as opposed to (potentionally named) "Jugoslavenski".
[Edited at 2008-05-11 12:45]
| | | | Dragomir Kovacevic
Italy
Member
Italian to Serbian
+ ...
| | to speak well of the dead | May 11 |
Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ wrote:
I meant in general that all people around the world have that freedom as long as they do not impose anything to others. Choosing one identity doesn't mean hating another, but simply being united independently in order to preserve the uniqueness rather than being absorbed by others and dissolve the particularities and the uniqueness that make one people a nation into another nation. |
|
there was no processes of sublimation of any nation or any minority, in ex-yu.
Unfortunately, those very right and freedom, they didn't have them in the "(whose?) civil principles" Yugoslavia. |
|
?! for the sake of respecting of mere westerner democratic, multiethnic principles, you are forgetting other, more fundamental ones, like this one:
Josip Broz Tito: "Mi moramo u Jugoslaviji pokazati da ne moze biti
manjine i vecine. Socijalizam vecinu i manjinu odbacuje. On trazi
ravnopravnost izmedu manjine i vecine, a onda nema ni vecine ni manjine, nego ima jedan narod, proizvodjac, radni
covjek, socijalisticki covjek."
the consequence of introducing distruption into balkanies, is known. the methods are also old, and known. those who brought in again those methods, brought you again the "bosnian" language.
In the period ante 1992 "my people" as you refer to, didn't have all the rights. I know, because those people had the choice (were forced) in former Yugoslavia to identify themselves as "Muslims" if they refused to identify themselves as Croats or Serbs. |
|
Personally, I know some people who kept declaring themselves as Serbs or Croats, of islamic religion. And we also had Turkish minority in ex-yu.
| I am not saying that Yugoslav regime was a negative experience. Far from that. It managed to unite all of us. |
|
then, it is better, as always, to speak well of the dead. whose language, despite everything, continues to hover. however, the state was "europe-like", much before mistress europe got united. and: each state has its defects. as for me, it was a brilliant country.
| However, I am simply pointing out flaws which should have been discussed and repaired in -as you had perfectly well put - a civil principles state, just as it was done for Macedonian Republic and its inhabitants which were on the verge of being assimiliated to Bulgarians or Serbs. |
|
i was using the description "civil state" for today's bosnia, for the sake of mere political correctness, for a striving that it should possess. privately, i'd say that it is not a multiethnic country, neither a multicultural one.
| The same civil principles apply to Montenegrins. If they had had the opportunity to choose their identity as Montenegrins and right to their language which they refer to as Montenegrin, Yugoslavia would have probably still been an example of compromise for the rest of the European Community, if not that, it would have at least survived as a State of confederated Yugoslav republics and we would have all most probably sing "Hej Slaveni" alongside other European Community members with their respective anthems. |
|
"Unification with Serbia
Great People's Parliament of Serb Nation in Montenegro
13.11.1918. Podgorica
Act of Union [Facsimile]
(excerpts)
first item 1.
Serbs of Montenegro are same in blood, language and aspiration, faith and heritage as people from Serbia and other Serb lands; We have common past which fills us up with enthusiasm, common ideals, heroes, sorrow and everything else that makes one nation really meaningful."
the percentage of declared Serbs in Montenegro, in the beginning of the XX century was about 95%. the interesting fact is that, after the WWII, the pride of declaring people as montenegrins, resulted in 90% of them. then, again, the percentage of montenegrins fell, and "Serbs" grew. please do check this:
OFFICIAL CENSUS' DATA ON ETHNICITY FROM 1909 TO 2003
1909; Princedom of Montenegro
total 317.856* inhabitants
Serbs: about 95%
Montenegrins: 0,00%
others mainly Albanians
1921; counties Andrijevica, Bar, Kolasin, Niksic, Podgorica and Cetinje categorized in official statistics as - Montenegro; Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
total 199.227 inhabitants
Serbs: 181.989 or 91,35%
Montenegrins: 0 or 0,00%
Albanians: 16.838 or 8,45%
1931; Montenegro*; Kingdom of Yugoslavia
total 360.044 inhabitants
Orthodox: 272.702
Roman Catholics: 26.070
Muslims 61.038
Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian languages: 339.955
Albanian language: 18.098
1948; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 377.189 inhabitants
Serbs: 6.707 or 1,78%
Montenegrins: 342.009 or 90,67%
Albanians: 19.425 or 5,15%
Croats: 6.808 or 1,8%
1953; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 419.873 inhabitants
Serbs: 13.864 or 3,3%
Montenegrins: 363.686 or 86,62%
Croats: 9.814 or 2,34%
Yugoslavs: 6.424 or 1,53%
Albanians: 23.460 or 5,58%
1961; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 471.894 inhabitants
Serbs: 14.087 or 2,99%
Montenegrins: 383.988 or 81,37%
Muslims: 30.665 or 6,5%
Croats: 10.664 or 2,26%
Yugoslavs: 1.559 or 0,33%
Albanians: 25.803 or 5,47%
1971; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 529.604 inhabitants
Serbs: 39.512 or 7,46%
Montenegrins: 355.632 or 67,15%
Muslims: 70.236 or 13,26%
Croats: 9.192 or 1,74%
Yugoslavs: 10.943 or 2,07%
Albanians: 35.671 or 6,74%
1981; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 584.310 inhabitants
Serbs: 19.407 or 3,32%
Montenegrins: 400.488 or 68,54%
Muslims: 78.080 or 13,36%
Croats: 6.904 or 1,81%
Yugoslavs: 33.146 or 5,67%
Albanians: 37.735 or 6,46%
1991; Republic of Montenegro; Socialist Yugoslavia
total 615.035 inhabitants
Serbs: 57.453 or 9,34%
Montenegrins: 380.467 or 61,86%
Muslims: 89.614 or 14,57%
Croats: 6.244 or 1,02%
Yugoslavs: 26.159 or 4,25%
Albanians: 40.415 or 6,57%
2003; Republic of Montenegro; State Union of Serbia & Montenegro
total 672.656 inhabitants
Serbs: 201.892 or 30,01%
Montenegrins: 273.366 or 40,64%
Bosniaks: 63.272 or 9,41%
Muslims: 28.714 or 4,27%
Croats: 7.062 or 1,05%
Albanians: 47.682 or 7,09%
And I am telling you that my ante-1992-teachers considered the word "juce" as a mistake at school in Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The correct word and standard was (and still is) "jucer". Yet the absurdity was that be it "juce" or "jucer" both were considered as "Serbo-Croatian", well if that's not absurd, I don't know what it is then. |
|
you are addressing wrongly your bitterness, here. before you have been saying that you were banned of using this or that word. what i see, is that teachers kept directing you to use one and only one variant, in formal speech and writing, which is not wrong.
| | | | Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ
Belgium
Bosnian to French
+ ...
MODERATOR | | Melting pot + salad bowl = Irish stew (who is who?) | May 11 |
Dragomir Kovacevic wrote:
Josip Broz Tito: "Mi moramo u Jugoslaviji pokazati da ne moze biti
manjine i vecine. Socijalizam vecinu i manjinu odbacuje. On trazi
ravnopravnost izmedu manjine i vecine, a onda nema ni vecine ni manjine, nego ima jedan narod, proizvodjac, radni
covjek, socijalisticki covjek."
|
|
Parole, parole...
If that was as simple as that, why weren't we all referred to as simply Yugoslavs and abandon all previous sub-denominations, such as Serb(ian), Croat(ian), "Muslims"...we are all Slavs of same ethnicity, aren't we?
I'll tell you why. Nobody wanted to get rid of their respective historical roots. And the same goes for Bosnians. You cannot speak about equality between a majority and minority and in the same time not give the opportunity to the minority to choose their own denomination by and for themselves. As a matter of fact, from the very beginning of the existence of Bosnia, people who have been living (regardless their religious or political orientation) in it have had their own history and reality within it.
What is happening today is unfortunate and unnecessary, but we cannot deny that it is happening as a result of some form of identity-related repression during the 20th century.
The fact that you mentioned that some people identify themselves as Serbs or Croats of Islamic faith is firstly extremely rare and secondly a consequence of the fact that indeed a "Muslim" nationality does not exist. Something I already explained in the previous post. It was fabricated unlike the term Bosnian which had been already used in the past, except during the 20th century. Finally, I can also say that I personally know Catholics and Orthodox who identify themselves as Bosnians because they don't see a direct relationship between a nationality and their religious life, which is something private. Now we both mentioned people who identify themselves as they wish, and what now? Are we going to tell them that they don't exist or that they chose their nationality wrogly?
p.s. If Tito was the only problem, we would be lucky today.
| | | | Said Kaljanac a.k.a. SARAJ
Belgium
Bosnian to French
+ ...
MODERATOR | | Twisted misinterpretation | May 11 |
Dragomir Kovacevic wrote:
And I am telling you that my ante-1992-teachers considered the word "juce" as a mistake at school in Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The correct word and standard was (and still is) "jucer". Yet the absurdity was that be it "juce" or "jucer" both were considered as "Serbo-Croatian", well if that's not absurd, I don't know what it is then. |
|
you are addressing wrongly your bitterness, here. before you have been saying that you were banned of using this or that word. what i see, is that teachers kept directing you to use one and only one variant, in formal speech and writing, which is not wrong.
|
|
It is not bitterness, it is a simple fact. Please do not put emotions in my words, unless I express them explicitely so.
Indeed according to my teachers it was wrong, thus a mistake in my notebook, thus I couldn't use it at school.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | |
The translation workplace 
