Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 16 February 2009

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian

I don't appreciate you waiting until I'm clear of the article and then reverting my edits, it is unprofessional and cowardly, not to mention counter-productive - an extended edit war has much the same impact as the regular kind. Oh, and by the way, could you archive your talk? I'm over my cap (thus on a slowed connection) and this page was a pain to load. Thanks (and happy belated new year!). +Hexagon1 02:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't waiting until you clear of the article, it's just that I've noticed later that you've reverted my edit. You haven't provided any sensible input on how exactly is the intersentence the first script devised for writing Slavic language, "misleading" ? The Glagolitic alphabet was used nowehere but in Croatia in the period of 12th-19th century, and some 98% of all extant Glagolitic MSS and books (they were even printed!) are of Croatian Glagolitic provenience. Furthermore, the exact nature of relationship of Croatian Glagolites and Cyrillo-Methodian tradition is still not 100% ascertained. It is worth emphasizing the preservation of the tradition of the original Slavic alphabet, invented by Constantine-Cyrillus, by far the most talented linguist of the 9th century, in the lands were Slavs were not subjugated to cultural domination of Orthodox churches that sought to obliterate their native culture and melt it into pan-Greek hodgepodge. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck passing 'pan-Greek hodgepodge' as NPOV. :) It is misleading as it renders the impression that the alphabet was Croatian in origin, which is not true. In my opinion the best solution here is expanding the note on Glagolitic. How about changing it to: "Historically, Croats had also made use of the Glagolitic alphabet, the first script devised for writing Slavic languages which was brought from Great Moravia for use in writing both Croatian Church Slavonic and vernacular documents."? I think that's a good compromise, I would personally phrase it a little different but I hope that this will be acceptable. +Hexagon1 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, lots of books emphasize that the reason why Cyrillic quickly substituted Glagolitic in the lands of Slavia Orhtodoxa is because it was more acceptable to Byzantine authorities due to its similarity with the Greek alphabet (Cyrillic is essentially bastardised Greek alphabet, which is itself bastardised Phoenician, itself bastardised Canaanite glyphs, utlimately bastardised Egyptian hieroglyphs ^_^). It is no surprise that only in the Catholic areas that were under the lesser influence of Byzantine conquerors seeking to obliterate "heresy" (northern Dalmatia and Istra) that the Glagolitic script survived, and moreover flourished. Of course, Glagolitic script is no one's in origin: it was a result of a mental effort of a single person (Constantine-Cyrillus, linguistically talented polyglot and the librarian in Constantinople), describing a phonological system of Thessaloniki surroundings, but its refinement in angular form is of exclusive Croatian. As I said, AFAIK it is not known whether Glagolitic was brought to Croatia by Methodius' disciples after expulsion from Moravia (more likely scenario), or it precedes that event via some indirect route. At any case, it does not matter particularly: what matters is that Glagolitic script for 7 centuries served as an extremely producitve literary medium for Croats, both for liturgical and non-liturgical purposes, eventually becoming a part of national identity (that te point that e.g. you can see Glagolitic letters in pre-electional placards for extreme right-wing parties). During the Communist times the role of Glagolitic literature was intentionally diminished and marginalised (there are literary hundreds of codices stil awaiting critical editions by competent paleographers, textologists and philologists), as if something "unimportant" and of no real value, despite the fact that, when in comparison of other, very scarce in volume, literary monuments of "brotherly Orthodox" countries whose non-Church-Slavonic writings essentially started only in the 18th/19th century, it represents cultural achievement par excellence. But now that I think about, this all is prob. too much for that short sentence. Let it be like it is now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Tsakavian archaisms

Hi Ivan. I'm going to edit new "Chakavian Archaisms" article. Do you have some of literacy mentioned in the same article in hr.wiki? Zenanarh (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What article on hr wiki? As far as the lexical archaisms in Čakavian are concerned, by far the most authorative and up-to-date work of scholarship is Čakavske leksičke studije - Praslavensko naslijeđe u čakavskome leksičkom fondu. I've read sam parts of it in the Algoritam store and I can assure you it's all you'll ever need ^_^. There seems to be available copies in KGZ, so if you start an article I can promise to expand it upon it once I borrow it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

mmh it's here sorry. I'm shocked how many words that we usually use :-O not some marginal words :-O Zenanarh (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, most content on that page is just rubbish. On a quick glance, 95% of those "archaisms" from Akkadian, Tocharian, Aryan, Anatolian, Old Persian or whatnot are just derived from Dalmatian, Venetian, Ottoman Turkish, or are just Common Slavic. Of listed reference works, I have access to Čakavisch-deutsches Lexikon and Jadranske etimologije --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Referrences are not so rubbish. Dalmatian, Venetian, Ottoman Turkish, or just Common Slavic languages were mediators. The point is that these archaisms are almost unchanged in forms, pronouncation and meaning (!) in comparison to the original. Question is what archaisms were found in the same place in local langugaes and what are brought via proto-Slavic or other. In some examples I know that Romancized words were a little bit different. Ie tarma; in the central Dalmatian aquatory it's garma - a Dalmatian language word. But I did hear form tarma in the northern islands. It's completely the same as an original. This word doesn't exist in other Italic languages! The same can be said for the most of other.

Italian Massimo Pallotino wrote a book, recently translated to Croatian, he investigated Ethruscan language through Chakavian Croatian - spoken in the northern half of Adriatic (islands) - ex Liburnia. Ethruscan word for "what" was ca! The most often Ethruscan word found is ašutina (on the funeral inscriptions) meaning "graveyard" or "(eternal) peace", by Latinization distorted to sutina in the inscriptions and then disappeared in the northern Italy. Via Liburnian to Chakavian it was saved like šutnja (peace) from where to other Croatian dialects in the same meaning. By archaeology the Liburni were trading with the Old Greeks and Ethruscans a lot. In 7th cent BC they had colonies on the Italian coast of Adriatic, to Corfu in the south. In next centuries they were gradually losing sea territory to be concentrated only to the northern Adriatic half in the 4th C BC and finally only in Liburnia (from Krka to Istria) in 2nd C BC, then Dalmatae (who were not seafarers!) broke through to the coast cutting off their south. So the last Gothic Liburnia Tarsatica was from Nin to Trsat. Whatever Liburni must have left a lot of sea-specialized terminology and vocabulary as well as tradition, like leut - an old Dalmatian type of a boat which geometry is based on the traditional Liburnian fishing boat, by the Old Greek writers noted as Liburnian lembus. Crna kužina is actually typical kitchen of the Dalmatae (and their relatives), unchanged for 2.300 yrs, until WWII, etc.

Ethruscans, Veneti, Liburni, Old Greeks, etc they all had important ethnogenetic Levantine sublayer, an influx from the Asia Minor, outlined in 4th-2nd millenium BC, attached to the autochtonous population of older Neolithic or Paleo roots. Allegedly there was "Sea people" migration from the Mediterranean to Asia Minor and its counter effect in opposite direction, Levantine migration to the west, resulting with groups mentioned. Indo-Europization episode, isn't it?

You know very well that South Slavic languages developed in the same place and the only connection to other Slavic idioms is proto-Slavic. It means assimilation in both directions, locally and globally. Zenanarh (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about ašutina, but ča is a regular reflex of Common Slavic *čь < by palatalisation from Proto-Slavic *ki < PIE interrogative/indefinite pronoun *kʷid, *kʷid. As I said: from my memory I can tell you that 95% of lexemes listed on that page have pretty-much established alternative etymologies. While I have no doubts that they may be some pre-IE Wanderwörter preserved in some Čakavian idioms, I can assure you that it's not to the scale that page presents it. I have serious doubts that the references that article mentions indeed quote Etruscan, Tocharian, Akkadian, Indo-Aryan etc. as the original sources :) The author was simply...too imaginative, which is bad, as it puts the real Common Slavic archaisms in Čakavian into bad perspective. My advice would be to use Čakavske leksičke studije as the primary source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm In some islands in the north as well as in Brač there was never ća. It was ca and still is. Brac, Bracani :)

Wouldn't it be possible that this palatalisation was a little bit influenced, 2 I-E forms of "what" met, ca and *ki? Zenanarh (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, *ki clusters were not allowed in Common Slavic (so-called "intrasyllabic synharmony"), so such /k/ > /č/ > /ts/ ('c'). No known South Slavic dialect preserved such *k AFAIK. The secondary sound change of /č/, /ž/, /š/ > /c/, /z/, /s/ is what defines tsakavism. It's an interesting change, but it unfortunatelly not an archaism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the rest of literacy mentioned there should be checked first. I've started to doubt in everything too middle stream :) or what they taught us, but either Age of Aquariaus inventions are probably not all reliable... Zenanarh (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hope you can answer...

why you delete my version without any reason notwithstanding I gave a source. Look here --84.142.63.91 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Prominant Individuals

Vladan Desnica His father was from noble Serbian family and his mother was from old Croatian family Luković. He is an descendant of a Serbs from Croatia. Ethnicity, means descendants. The edit is thus wrong, i expect you to undo it or provide me an alternative reason why you think that your edit was right.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, nationality/ethnicity is not something genetically transferred, otherwise we'd classify Vojislav Šešelj as a Croat. By cultural affiliation and language, V. Desnica is Croatian writer. If you can find a reference where he declares himself as a Serb, that'd be another thing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand your argument, please clarify. Ethnicity is in fact something that is inherited according to the definition of ethnicity stated above. Those people that you have removed did in fact all have at least 1 Serbian parent. I also dont understand the point you are trying to make in the brackets, where you start by saying "funny thing".Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan you are confusing your self with Seselj whos parents are both Serbs. Seselj is not in any sense of Croatian. I don't want to talk about him because I don't understand your point, with Seselj. There are two ways to determine ethnicity, the place where you were born or your parents descent. Let me explain. Let's say a a person is born to Serbian parents in Switzerland. he is Serbian by descent of his parents or he is Swiss by the place of his birth. now Vladan Desnica was born in Austria-Hungary (Croatia) to Serbia and Croat parents. Therefore he is Austrian Hungarian or he is Serbo-Croatian. I don't see how he can be only Croatian and not Serbian.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree. The relationship to the ethnicity is defined by 1) person's self-declaration (primarily, unless he declares himself as Klingon or something) 2) the cultural milieu he belongs to (e.g. religion, language, where the person worked for the majority of his life). I'm personally abhorred by the notion of ethnicity of something being genetically transferred.

As for the Budmani, Maretić, Pucić et al. - do you have a reference for them having Serb parents, or you're twisting the logic here of them favouring the brief "Serb Catholic" movement hence genetic heritage being inapplicable? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic: 1. relating to national and cultural origins 2. denoting origin by birth 3. descent rather than by present nationality. Petar Preradović had a Serbian mother so he falls into category number 3. With these type of people (mixed marriages) I can understand how it is somewhat sensitive. I guess we can use discretion in these cases. However, Milka Mesic, is 100% ethnic Serb by definition 3. According to your definition 1 Medo Pucić is Serbian. How do you think that we should determine ethnicity?Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your MetaWiki talk page

Hi,

I was wondering if you have seen my comments on your MetaWiki talk page (specially this one). Alefbe (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Can you please solve my grammar problems in article Croatia ? I am writing history section in article Croatia (because nobody has writen this).--Rjecina (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I did what I can...--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

proto-Slavic

Have you read .

Curta believes that Slavic spread throughou the Balkans later than 600s, more like after 700, into the 800s. His primary evidence is that loan words into Romanian or ALbanian come from Bulgarian, Serbian etc rather than late Common Slavic Hxseek (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Nice paper! Curta goes at length explaining the historical background, but he doesn't offer much of the data to look at. I know that there are several Slavicisms in Romanian that obviously predate liquid metathesis in South Slavic (second half of the 8th century), which puts them firmly in Common Slavic period. Of the lexemes he mentions: Albanian magulë he connects to Romanian măgură assuming the change of /l/ to /r/, which is silly as the Albanian word perfectly matches with Proto-Slavic *magūlā (Common Slavic *mogyla). Same is with Alb. karrutë, Greek karouta < Proto-Slavic *karūta (Comon Slavic *koryto), Abl. matukë, Greek matouka < Proto-Slavic *matūkā (Common Slavic *motyka).

The difference between Proto-Slavic (spoken at around y. 600) and Common Slavic (or "Late Proto-Slavic") is in fact that the former had quantitative oppositions of vowels (as modern-day Czech or Croatian), where every vowel could be short or long: *a : ā*, *e : *ē, *i : *ī, *u : *ū (note the absence of short *o and long *ō). In Common Slavic period the changes occurred that made quantitative oppositions qualitative ones: *a > *o, *ā> *a; *e > *e, *ē> *ě; *i > *ь, *ī > *i; *u > *ъ, *ū> *y. So e.g. the old quantiative opposition *a : *ā became new qualitative one: *o : *a. Other phonological changes from Proto-Slavic to Common Slavic were the monophthongisations of the diphtongs (*ej > *i, *aj > *ě, *aw > *ō > *u) and the rise of nasal vowels from a sequence of a vowel followed by a nasal (*em/en/im/in > *ę, *am/an/um/un > *ǫ), all in concordance with tendencies known as "low of open syllables" or "syllabic synharmony" (really empty phrases if you ask me). So if you look at those 3 Albanian and Greek etymons Curta mentiones, all of them point to pre-Common-Slavic, so I have no idea what he's talking about. That Vasmer's book on Slavic onomastics in Greek lists 90% of Slavic words reflecting such Proto-Slavic. I mentioned the Croatian autonym on that talk page: Greek Χαρβάτα < Proto-Slavic *xarwāt- (Slavic long vowel is marked with stres in Byzantine Greek borrowings) (> Common Slavic *xorvat). Or e.g. Slavic word for "town, settlment" - Common Slavic *gordъ < Proto-Slavic *gardu, attested in Greek toponyms Γάρδι, Γαρδικάκι, Γαρδίκι(ον), Γαρδίτσα, also lacking liquid metathesis and palatalisation of a suffix that would become later -ac, -ec, -əc. One of them is basically equal to Pannonian Slavic gradec that later gave the name of Graz...

So in short: I have no idea what Curta is talking about, as the evidence for Common Slavic and pre-Common-Slavic presence in the Balkans (prob. dating to y. 600 - 750) is very abundant. You can't speak of Serbian or Bulgaro-Macedonian until centuries later. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks buddy Hxseek (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Offensive message

Could you please refrain from leaving offensive messages on my talk page???--71.252.55.101 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not "offensive messages" but translusions of the usual anti-vandalism templates. You are not supposed to remove them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:71.252.55.101, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for noting me. Malicious IPs are really given too much free will around here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatia

Thanks for information. We are having vandal which is trying to start edit war between hungarian and croatian users. Maybe I am making mistake but earlier user name has been user:Toroko. Our contact with hungarian users about this question is user:Hobartimus.--Rjecina (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)