 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Google Translator treatment of Bulgarian and... |
|
Page 6 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| António Marques... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:57 am, António Marques<m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:56 pm, António Marques<ento... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:40 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ<dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
In 1818, when Vuk published the Serbian Dictionary, there
were in use two scripts for Serbian language, Latin and
Cyrillic (graec.) see
belowwww.skolalukicevo.com/images/alph_vuk.jpg
Was it common to call cyrillic greek ('graec')? I had no idea.
Vuk probably thought about two Serbian scripts born in different
European environments/cultures (Greek and Latin; hence graec.
graecor?); Cyrillic is supposed to be an "imitation" of Greek
letters.
Ok. Just out of curiosity, where was latin serbian used? In Serbia
proper or only in lands where the 'official' languages were
latin-based? Does Gaj's alphabet derive from latin serbian or was
it created anew?
First, you must know that the majority of population in Serbia in
the first half of the XIX century was illiterate (there were no
schools). Those who were seriously educated used the both alphabets
equally, just as the Serbs are doing it nowadays.
[/quote]
Alright. That's surprising; I thought that before WW2 both were used,
but latin only by a small number chiefly outside Serbia (and that the
importance of that small number and the advantage of easier access to
croatian had been the reason behind post-WW2 biscriptal education). But
you're saying instead that the latin bean being used much longer ago, in
Serbia proper and by the same people who used cyrillic. I can only
wonder - why? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 4:36 pm, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 3:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:38 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 8:14 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:35 pm, Panu<craoibhi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I grant you that the Ekavian vs. Ijekavian opposition is not as
important as lexicon, usage of tenses, and Balkan syntax. For
instance, if I remember correctly, Montenegrin is Ijekavian, but in
its vocabulary and syntax it is more akin to Serbian, i.e. it is
basically Ijekavian Serbian.
There is no difference in the vocabulary. For instance, the Croatian
word for thousand is tisuæa, and tisuæa is, in fact, an obsolete
medieval Serbian word. The similar is with the names of months and
pronouns tko 'who' (modern Serb. ko), netko (neko) 'somebody', nitko
(niko) 'nobody' etc. Almost all the words the Croats are using today
as "their own" specifficum are mentioned (written down) by Vuk
Karad¾iæ in his Serbian Dictionary.
Yes, but what matters are their relative frequency and specific
connotations. Of course all of yugoslavian is only one language. But it
has more than one standard, and in each some forms are favoured over others.
Of course, I admit that there is a slight difference (more frequent
usage of infinitive in Croatia, for instance) in syntax between
Serbian and Croatian variants of Serbo-Croatian, but it is, at the
same time, a difference between the Eastern and the Western Serbian
way of formation of sentences.
Suma sumarum, Neo-Shtokavian has been called Serbian or Slovinski
(Slavonic) through the centuries, Serbo-Croatian for more than a
century, and now the Bosniaks (not Bosnians) and Montenegrin are
trying to steal that language and rename it in accordance with their
new-coined national names and their rotten political goals.
What you still haven't realised is that 'Serbian', as you call it
including all of yugoslav, is not any more the serbs' property than it
is the montenegrins. If the montenegrins want to call their standard
language 'Montenegrin', that's their business. Why should they call it
'Serbian'? It's not like the serbs taught it to them. You seem to think
that on the one hand the language of the montenegrins is the same as
that of the serbs (granted), and on the other hand the language of the
serbs is serbian in nature (granted). But you can't combine the two and
say that the language of the montenegrins is serbian in nature. You
can't have it both ways. If you want people to recognise that all of
yugoslav is only one language, then you must be prepared to accept that
that language isn't any more property of the serbs that it is of the
montenegrins or croats.
Once again, I said Serbo-Croatian not Serbian (how many times I have
to repeat it?) and it has nothing to do with the ethnicity because the
Serbo-Croatian is the name of a language as it is English, German,
Italian, French etc. Any ethnicity (fresh or old, invented or not) in
the Balkan is free to use that language as anyone is free to use
English language, at least as long as he doesn't try to alter its
original name.
(a) Why may he not "try to alter its original name"?
(b) What is that "original name"? Here you're using English forms. Is
"Serbo-Croatian" its original name?
Following your unusual logic, the Bosnian Muslims might have taken the
English language as their own and they could have called it the
Bosniac language.
How would several million Bosnians have learned English? Why shouldn't
they call a language that developed from English in Bosnia "Bosnian"?
("-ac" isn't used for languages in English.) Anyway if they were going
to (somehow) perform such a massive language shift, it might have been
to Arabic, and for Arabic there's no tradition of renaming the local
varieties (except for Maltese): their language, likely to be barely
understandable in Egypt or Syria, would presumably be called Bosnian
Arabic.
Why then the American English isn't called just
American? Americans also haven't been taught English by Englishmen,
have they?
Do you really know _that_ little about history? North America was
settled primarily by English-, French-, and Spanish-speakers, and
those are the languages that still prevail in the areas where each one
had the primary influence. Except in a few minimal regions where
Native languages are still viable.
I see, you are much better in history than I am. Anyway, may I ask you
something about the American War of Independence? Who were they
fighting against? And why they continued to speak the language of
their enemies? How it happened that they didn't rename the language in
accordance to their independent state?
[/quote]
They weren't originally looking for independence per se. They were
looking for representation in Parliament. When the English proved
intransigent over more than a decade, they were finally pushed to
revolt. But they certainly didn't want to abandon English culture;
what would they have taken up instead?
After the Revolution, some patriots tried to establish an "American"
language. Noah Webster was a prominent one, and his "spellers" were
very successful in the 1780s-1790s. In his dictionaries of 1806 and
1828 he tried to establish a regular orthography that was, in minor
ways, distinct from that of the Old World, mostly by picking and
choosing among proposals that had been around since Dr Johnson's
Dictionary (1755) had become the authority for English spelling. Many
of Webster's changes did indeed prevail in the US. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:57 am, António Marques<m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:56 pm, António Marques<ento... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:40 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ<dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
In 1818, when Vuk published the Serbian Dictionary, there
were in use two scripts for Serbian language, Latin and
Cyrillic (graec.) see
belowwww.skolalukicevo.com/images/alph_vuk.jpg
Was it common to call cyrillic greek ('graec')? I had no idea.
Vuk probably thought about two Serbian scripts born in different
European environments/cultures (Greek and Latin; hence graec.
graecor?); Cyrillic is supposed to be an "imitation" of Greek
letters.
Ok. Just out of curiosity, where was latin serbian used? In Serbia
proper or only in lands where the 'official' languages were
latin-based? Does Gaj's alphabet derive from latin serbian or was
it created anew?
First, you must know that the majority of population in Serbia in
the first half of the XIX century was illiterate (there were no
schools). Those who were seriously educated used the both alphabets
equally, just as the Serbs are doing it nowadays.
Alright. That's surprising; I thought that before WW2 both were used,
but latin only by a small number chiefly outside Serbia (and that the
importance of that small number and the advantage of easier access to
croatian had been the reason behind post-WW2 biscriptal education). But
you're saying instead that the latin bean being used much longer ago, in
Serbia proper and by the same people who used cyrillic. I can only
wonder - why?
[/quote]
And why not? The Serbs always were (and still are) an open-minded
people/society. For instance, there are members of my family who
prefer to write one or another script: my mother writes using the
Latin letters, father Cyrillic (both 79 years old). In fact, no one
pays any attention to it, because everyone in Serbia (illiterate
excluded) can read and write both of these two alphabets equally.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 6:55 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote] > I noticed the turkish loanwords as sounding
unfamiliar to a Serb.
Which one? All Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims are equally
I remember amud¾a meaning "(paternal?) uncle", from turkish
this may not have come out too well: amudz^a
[/quote]
Serb. amidža (uncle, father's brother http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amid%C5%BEa,
also Serb. stric, strikan 'uncle'); there is no one in Serbia who
doesn't know what/who amidža is.
[quote]amca (pronounced am*dj*a) "paternal uncle", from arabic
3amm + the dimunitive ending -ca . incidentally without that
ending it would have sounded in turkish like am , refering to the
external female genitalia!
[/quote]
May it somehow be related to Latin amicus? :-)
[quote]acquainted with the Turkish loanwords. However, you cannot change the
name of the language by using more or less loanwords; loanwords are
loanwords and nothing more than that.
well, the difference between "dialect" and "language" is frequently
political or social. there is the example of Hindi and Urdu which
differ in loanwords and script, but for everyday conversation are
mutually intelligible. the common name is Hindustani, or as some
Hindus prefer Hindusthani (-stha:n is the inidc cognate of iranian
-sta:n), which refers to the everyday speach free from the
deliberately
persifying policy of Pakistan and the deliberatley sanskritizing
policy of India.
again, I personally prefer that people find what is in common,
rather than what differentiates them.
Finally, Abdulah ©kaljiæ recorded all the Turkish loanwords in Serbo-
Croatian (not in the Bosniak or Montenegrin). Abdulah Skaljic (1985).
Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom-hrvatskosrpskom jeziku, Sarajevo/The
Turkish Loanwords in Serbo-Croatian.
yes, I saw that work referenced elsewhere. but it is not unreasonable
that there more of them in the dialect of Muslims, particularly
Bosnian
ones.
[/quote]
The problem is that there never was any "dialect of Muslim" in Bosnia.
Before the last Bosnian war (1992-95) the Bosnian population was
hardly mixed and they all spoke the same Serbo-Croatian (Ijekavian)
language (there were no dialects at all, neither Muslim nor Serbian
nor Croatian).
In addition (I think I've told it before), until the 1968 (when the
schizophrenic Communist regime introduced the new "ethnical" name
Muslims) more than 90% of the Muslim population in Bosnia declared
themselves as Serbs, while a few of them (about 10%) considered
themselves to be either Yugoslavs or Croats. The most famous Muslim
writers like Meša Selimović, Skender Kulenović, Omer–beg Sulejmanpašić-
Despotović, Avdo Karabegović Hasanbegov, Osman Đikić, Smajo Ćemalović,
Nuridin Ibnul-Hadžer, Aliverić Tuzlak, Omer Skopljaković and many
others declared themselves as "the Serbs of Islamic faith".
One of the greatest (above-mentioned) European film-makers of the
modern era, Emir Kusturica, is a Serb too.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:51pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]After the Revolution, some patriots tried to establish an "American"
language. Noah Webster was a prominent one, and his "spellers" were
very successful in the 1780s-1790s. In his dictionaries of 1806 and
1828 he tried to establish a regular orthography that was, in minor
ways, distinct from that of the Old World, mostly by picking and
choosing among proposals that had been around since Dr Johnson's
Dictionary (1755) had become the authority for English spelling. Many
of Webster's changes did indeed prevail in the US.
[/quote]
This is a good example... thanks for telling it. Of course, there have
always been lunatics who tried to fulfill their sick ideas/dreams. In
Noah's case normal people reacted normally and thus prevented the
barbarous act of a language thievery.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:55 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
Following your unusual logic, the Bosnian Muslims might have taken the
English language as their own and they could have called it the
Bosniac language. Why then the American English isn't called just
American?
What makes you think it won't be at some time in the future? At some
point various groups of people in Eastern Europe started calling their
languages Polish and Czech and Russian and Bulgarian instead of Polish
Slavic and Czech Slavic and Russian Slavic and Bulgarian Slavic, right?
And there aren't any modern languages that have been referred to as
Catalonian Latin or Romanian Latin or Italian Latin in at least a few
centuries, right?
[/quote]
And what do you suggest? Are you advocating for all of the hundreds of
European dialects to become recognized languages? Even today, one of
the main problem for a serious "unity" of EU is a "language based"
difficulty. Do you know how much money they are spending just to
translate their documents to all EU "official" languages? Would it not
be much easier and much cheaper if they would use a single language
(English for instance)?
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 10:08 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel... at (no spam) wollmersdorfer.at>
wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
After the Revolution, some patriots tried to establish an "American"
language. Noah Webster was a prominent one, and his "spellers" were
very successful in the 1780s-1790s. In his dictionaries of 1806 and
1828 he tried to establish a regular orthography that was, in minor
ways, distinct from that of the Old World, mostly by picking and
choosing among proposals that had been around since Dr Johnson's
Dictionary (1755) had become the authority for English spelling. Many
of Webster's changes did indeed prevail in the US.
This is a good example... thanks for telling it. Of course, there have
always been lunatics who tried to fulfill their sick ideas/dreams. In
Noah's case normal people reacted normally and thus prevented the
barbarous act of a language thievery.
Nobody can 'steal' a language. Languages are free. Names for languages
are free.
And it's very natural behaviour that languages or dialects get the name
of the region. If you ask somebody from Vienna "Which dialect do you
speak?" he will answer "Viennese", and a person from Lower Austria will
answer "Lower Austrian", even if they speak the same 'current East
Austrian colloquial'. See also 'Dutch', 'Netherlands' and 'Flams' and
many other examples.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[/quote]
It seems you misunderstood... Of course, unofficially people can name
the language they speak as they like. Who cares about your fucking
'Viennese' or 'Lower Austrian'?
The standard language in Austria is the Austrian Standard German (in
fact, Hochdeutsch)! Didn't you know it?
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 10:28 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel... at (no spam) wollmersdorfer.at>
wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
I see, you are much better in history than I am. Anyway, may I ask you
something about the American War of Independence? Who were they
fighting against? And why they continued to speak the language of
their enemies? How it happened that they didn't rename the language in
accordance to their independent state?
IMHO it's a matter of political and cultural history, that English,
Spanish, French, German and other languages have standards besides their
very different dialects. And Slavic languages did not setup a standard
for some historical reasons. Why?
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[/quote]
Can you be more specific; what did you mean by saying that "Slavic
languages did not setup a standard"? There are a few standard Slavic
languages like Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian,
Sorbian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian; just the way as it happened in
Germanic or Romance.
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dušan Vukotić... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 10:53 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel... at (no spam) wollmersdorfer.at>
wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
It seems you misunderstood... Of course, unofficially people can name
the language they speak as they like. Who cares about your fucking
'Viennese' or 'Lower Austrian'?
The estimated 3 million people speaking it.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
[/quote]
And so what? We are talking about the standard languages. Is your
"Viennese" recognized as a language of schools, press, medias,
government/parliament?
DV |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Wollmersdorfer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
After the Revolution, some patriots tried to establish an "American"
language. Noah Webster was a prominent one, and his "spellers" were
very successful in the 1780s-1790s. In his dictionaries of 1806 and
1828 he tried to establish a regular orthography that was, in minor
ways, distinct from that of the Old World, mostly by picking and
choosing among proposals that had been around since Dr Johnson's
Dictionary (1755) had become the authority for English spelling. Many
of Webster's changes did indeed prevail in the US.
This is a good example... thanks for telling it. Of course, there have
always been lunatics who tried to fulfill their sick ideas/dreams. In
Noah's case normal people reacted normally and thus prevented the
barbarous act of a language thievery.
[/quote]
Nobody can 'steal' a language. Languages are free. Names for languages
are free.
And it's very natural behaviour that languages or dialects get the name
of the region. If you ask somebody from Vienna "Which dialect do you
speak?" he will answer "Viennese", and a person from Lower Austria will
answer "Lower Austrian", even if they speak the same 'current East
Austrian colloquial'. See also 'Dutch', 'Netherlands' and 'Flams' and
many other examples.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Wollmersdorfer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]I see, you are much better in history than I am. Anyway, may I ask you
something about the American War of Independence? Who were they
fighting against? And why they continued to speak the language of
their enemies? How it happened that they didn't rename the language in
accordance to their independent state?
[/quote]
IMHO it's a matter of political and cultural history, that English,
Spanish, French, German and other languages have standards besides their
very different dialects. And Slavic languages did not setup a standard
for some historical reasons. Why?
Helmut Wollmersdorfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Wollmersdorfer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]It seems you misunderstood... Of course, unofficially people can name
the language they speak as they like. Who cares about your fucking
'Viennese' or 'Lower Austrian'?
[/quote]
The estimated 3 million people speaking it.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 3:13 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 6:31 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:57 am, António Marques<m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:56 pm, António Marques<ento... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:40 am, Du¹an Vukotiæ<dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
In 1818, when Vuk published the Serbian Dictionary, there
were in use two scripts for Serbian language, Latin and
Cyrillic (graec.) see
belowwww.skolalukicevo.com/images/alph_vuk.jpg
Was it common to call cyrillic greek ('graec')? I had no idea.
Vuk probably thought about two Serbian scripts born in different
European environments/cultures (Greek and Latin; hence graec.
graecor?); Cyrillic is supposed to be an "imitation" of Greek
letters.
Ok. Just out of curiosity, where was latin serbian used? In Serbia
proper or only in lands where the 'official' languages were
latin-based? Does Gaj's alphabet derive from latin serbian or was
it created anew?
First, you must know that the majority of population in Serbia in
the first half of the XIX century was illiterate (there were no
schools). Those who were seriously educated used the both alphabets
equally, just as the Serbs are doing it nowadays.
Alright. That's surprising; I thought that before WW2 both were used,
but latin only by a small number chiefly outside Serbia (and that the
importance of that small number and the advantage of easier access to
croatian had been the reason behind post-WW2 biscriptal education). But
you're saying instead that the latin bean being used much longer ago, in
Serbia proper and by the same people who used cyrillic. I can only
wonder - why?
And why not? The Serbs always were (and still are) an open-minded
people/society. For instance, there are members of my family who
prefer to write one or another script: my mother writes using the
Latin letters, father Cyrillic (both 79 years old). In fact, no one
pays any attention to it, because everyone in Serbia (illiterate
excluded) can read and write both of these two alphabets equally.
[/quote]
From which we deduce that your mother is Catholic and your father is
Orthodox. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:22am, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win... at (no spam) cwi.nl> wrote:
[quote]In article <9075e055-4771-4c09-9b46-e2e73ae2c... at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups..com> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
> On Oct 29, 10:05=A0am, Du=B9an Vukoti=E6 <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > Which one? All Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims are equally
> > acquainted with the Turkish loanwords. However, you cannot change the
> > name of the language by using more or less loanwords; loanwords are
> > loanwords and nothing more than that.
> You can change the name of the language whenever you fucking want.
> Gaining independence often provides the opportunity to do so.
Yes, ask any Norwegian whether they are still speaking Danish. (Of course
there have been separate developments since the independence.)
[/quote]
I sure would love to know what's happened to Korean, with almost no
communication between the peoples for some three generations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 4:06 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 6:55 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
> I noticed the turkish loanwords as sounding
unfamiliar to a Serb.
Which one? All Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims are equally
I remember amud¾a meaning "(paternal?) uncle", from turkish
this may not have come out too well: amudz^a
Serb. amidža (uncle, father's brotherhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amid%C5%BEa,
also Serb. stric, strikan 'uncle'); there is no one in Serbia who
doesn't know what/who amidža is.
amca (pronounced am*dj*a) "paternal uncle", from arabic
3amm + the dimunitive ending -ca . incidentally without that
ending it would have sounded in turkish like am , refering to the
external female genitalia!
May it somehow be related to Latin amicus? :-)
acquainted with the Turkish loanwords. However, you cannot change the
name of the language by using more or less loanwords; loanwords are
loanwords and nothing more than that.
well, the difference between "dialect" and "language" is frequently
political or social. there is the example of Hindi and Urdu which
differ in loanwords and script, but for everyday conversation are
mutually intelligible. the common name is Hindustani, or as some
Hindus prefer Hindusthani (-stha:n is the inidc cognate of iranian
-sta:n), which refers to the everyday speach free from the
deliberately
persifying policy of Pakistan and the deliberatley sanskritizing
policy of India.
again, I personally prefer that people find what is in common,
rather than what differentiates them.
Finally, Abdulah ©kaljiæ recorded all the Turkish loanwords in Serbo-
Croatian (not in the Bosniak or Montenegrin). Abdulah Skaljic (1985).
Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom-hrvatskosrpskom jeziku, Sarajevo/The
Turkish Loanwords in Serbo-Croatian.
yes, I saw that work referenced elsewhere. but it is not unreasonable
that there more of them in the dialect of Muslims, particularly
Bosnian
ones.
The problem is that there never was any "dialect of Muslim" in Bosnia.
Before the last Bosnian war (1992-95) the Bosnian population was
hardly mixed and they all spoke the same Serbo-Croatian (Ijekavian)
language (there were no dialects at all, neither Muslim nor Serbian
nor Croatian).
[/quote]
Of course there were dialects. They were, however, geographically
based, not politically based.
Isoglosses paid no attention to boundaries. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:00 am
|
|