 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Google Translator treatment of Bulgarian and... |
|
Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Atkinson... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 8:23 pm, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
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).
Of course there were dialects. They were, however, geographically
based, not politically based.
Isoglosses paid no attention to boundaries.
You know nothing about Bosnia and stop pretending to be a smart ass
about things you don't know.
It has nothing to do with Bosnia specifically.
But I happen to have been told by Slavicists that there are (of
course) dialects within Serbo-Croatian, and they do not coincide with
political boundaries.
What about Herzegovina?
There were, and are, three main dialects of Serbo-Croat spoken in[/quote]
Bosnia-Hercesovina, viz Eastern Hercegovian (which forms the basis for
standard Serbo-Croat, and is of course ijekavian), Eastern Bosnian
(jekavian and shkyakavian), and Younger Ikavian (mostly in Hercegovina
and eastern Dalmatia).
Dushan, have you ever been there?
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Wollmersdorfer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]Officially recognized languages! What is officially recognized
language in Germany - Standard German?
[/quote]
No, it's _German_ (with all its ~1000 dialects).
Helmut Wollmersdorfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nikolaj... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
[quote]On Oct 30, 8:23 pm, Duan Vukoti <dusan.vuko... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
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).
Of course there were dialects. They were, however, geographically
based, not politically based.
Isoglosses paid no attention to boundaries.
You know nothing about Bosnia and stop pretending to be a smart ass
about things you don't know.
It has nothing to do with Bosnia specifically.
But I happen to have been told by Slavicists that there are (of
course) dialects within Serbo-Croatian, and they do not coincide with
political boundaries.
What about Herzegovina?
[/quote]
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Antnio Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 10:27pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote]Nikolaj:
Trond Engen pravi:
Nikolaj:
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
I remember that map. Potentially very informative but a
cartographical disaster.
What do you mean?
The map is supposed to show three things, by the mapmaker's priority:
1. classification by the tokavian/Kajkavian/akavian isogloss
2. classification by the Ikavian/Ekavian/Ijekavian isogloss
3. major dialect areas within tokavian that are named without regard to
the other isogloss
Two independent scales and a specifying overlay. This could have been
made understandable in a single glance. There are several ways to do it,
but e.g.:
1. assign different primary colours to tokavian, Kajkavian and akavian.
2. assign different shades (light to dark) for Ikavian, Ekavian and
Ijekavian (and mixed areas).
(These two may be switched)
3. assign thin line hatch patterns, or maybe just a thick borderline, to
the named dialect areas. In that way one would see how these fit within,
or cross, both isoglosses.
[/quote]
There's this one also:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shtokavian_Subdialect_en.png
Makes you realise how much of Serbia is actually bulgarian. Or rather,
how a 'torlak'-macedonian standard might have developed independently
of serbian on one side and bulgarian on the other.
One can clearly see how red (east herzegovinian) was introduced to the
NW of its original area, displacing and splitting the original
dialects. The story, which I alluded to earlier, goes that the
ottomans settled serbs in territory previously owned by croats and
that is the origin of northern Bosnia and Krajina's serbs. NB this
doesn't mean the serbs disowned the croats; presumably, those
territories had become mostly uninhabited before the serbs were
settled there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nikolaj:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
[/quote]
I remember that map. Potentially very informative but a cartographical
disaster.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nikolaj... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen pravi:
[quote]Nikolaj:
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
I remember that map. Potentially very informative but a cartographical
disaster.
[/quote]
What do you mean? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nikolaj:
[quote]Trond Engen pravi:
Nikolaj:
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
I remember that map. Potentially very informative but a
cartographical disaster.
What do you mean?
[/quote]
The map is supposed to show three things, by the mapmaker's priority:
1. classification by the tokavian/Kajkavian/akavian isogloss
2. classification by the Ikavian/Ekavian/Ijekavian isogloss
3. major dialect areas within tokavian that are named without regard to
the other isogloss
Two independent scales and a specifying overlay. This could have been
made understandable in a single glance. There are several ways to do it,
but e.g.:
1. assign different primary colours to tokavian, Kajkavian and akavian.
2. assign different shades (light to dark) for Ikavian, Ekavian and
Ijekavian (and mixed areas).
(These two may be switched)
3. assign thin line hatch patterns, or maybe just a thick borderline, to
the named dialect areas. In that way one would see how these fit within,
or cross, both isoglosses.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nikolaj... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen pravi:
[quote]The map is supposed to show three things, by the mapmaker's priority:
1. classification by the tokavian/Kajkavian/akavian isogloss
2. classification by the Ikavian/Ekavian/Ijekavian isogloss
3. major dialect areas within tokavian that are named without regard to
the other isogloss
Two independent scales and a specifying overlay. This could have been
made understandable in a single glance. There are several ways to do it,
but e.g.:
1. assign different primary colours to tokavian, Kajkavian and akavian.
2. assign different shades (light to dark) for Ikavian, Ekavian and
Ijekavian (and mixed areas).
(These two may be switched)
3. assign thin line hatch patterns, or maybe just a thick borderline, to
the named dialect areas. In that way one would see how these fit within,
or cross, both isoglosses.
[/quote]
Yes, and all that in one map. It not so difficult.
First take out akavian (shades of pink - not all) and kajkavian (shades
of gray). The rest is tokavian area in different colors.
I guess the most difficult to see on the map is the difference between
ikavian akavian (pink islands and some of the coast area) and
ikavian/partly ikavian tokavian (rest of pink in Croatia and Bosnia.)
One thing though, only some named dialect areas are shown for tokavian,
and the map is not exact - there might be some mistakes here and there. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Antnio Marques:
[quote]Nikolaj:
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]There's this one also:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shtokavian_Subdialect_en.png
Makes you realise how much of Serbia is actually bulgarian. Or
rather, how a 'torlak'-macedonian standard might have developed
independently of serbian on one side and bulgarian on the other.
[/quote]
And all up in the other end: How much of Croatia is "actually"
Slovenian. I remember from the first thing I read about the inner
workings of Serbo-Croatian, a Norwegian encyclopedia article in the
mid-eighties, that the fairly uniform tokavian of Dalmatia, Bosnia and
Slavonia was said to give way to more varied dialects in
Central/Northern Croatia, and the dialects of the Zagreb area to have
much in common with Slovenian.
I tried to half-Slovenicize an Istrian acquaintance of mine not long
ago. "No, that's another language", he said. But I'm not sure if he
appreciated my distinction between local spoken varieties and the
written norm.
[quote]One can clearly see how red (east herzegovinian) was introduced to
the NW of its original area, displacing and splitting the original
dialects. The story, which I alluded to earlier, goes that the
ottomans settled serbs in territory previously owned by croats and
that is the origin of northern Bosnia and Krajina's serbs. NB this
doesn't mean the serbs disowned the croats; presumably, those
territories had become mostly uninhabited before the serbs were
settled there.
[/quote]
And even the Habsburg empire resettled groups of people from the south
in scarcely inhabited border provinces.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen wrote:
[quote]António Marques:
Nikolaj:
Peter T. Daniels pravi:
What about Herzegovina?
One rough approximation:
http://www.unc.edu/~rdgreenb/dialectmap.gif
[...]
There's this one also:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shtokavian_Subdialect_en.png
Makes you realise how much of Serbia is actually bulgarian. Or rather,
how a 'torlak'-macedonian standard might have developed independently
of serbian on one side and bulgarian on the other.
And all up in the other end: How much of Croatia is "actually"
Slovenian. I remember from the first thing I read about the inner
workings of Serbo-Croatian, a Norwegian encyclopedia article in the
mid-eighties, that the fairly uniform Štokavian of Dalmatia, Bosnia and
Slavonia was said to give way to more varied dialects in
Central/Northern Croatia, and the dialects of the Zagreb area to have
much in common with Slovenian.
[/quote]
Well, there you are. Duscian doesn't get tired repeating that the 'true'
croats were slovenes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nikolaj <nikolaj.korbar at (no spam) bla.si> wrote:
[quote]There is a dialect continuum from most north-western Slovenian dialects
is spoken down to the most eastern Bulgarian.
[/quote]
I wonder what the intermediate forms look like between Bulgarian's
very reduced noun/adjective inflection and the typical Slavic one
of the more westerly languages. And isn't the Bulgarian verbal
system more complex?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques:
[quote]Trond Engen wrote:
António Marques:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shtokavian_Subdialect_en.png
Makes you realise how much of Serbia is actually bulgarian. Or
rather, how a 'torlak'-macedonian standard might have developed
independently of serbian on one side and bulgarian on the other.
And all up in the other end: How much of Croatia is "actually"
Slovenian. I remember from the first thing I read about the inner
workings of Serbo-Croatian, a Norwegian encyclopedia article in the
mid-eighties, that the fairly uniform Štokavian of Dalmatia, Bosnia
and Slavonia was said to give way to more varied dialects in
Central/Northern Croatia, and the dialects of the Zagreb area to
have much in common with Slovenian.
Well, there you are. Duscian doesn't get tired repeating that the
'true' croats were slovenes.
[/quote]
I haven't read him for a couple of years. Slovenes, then, in the sense
that everything west of the river Bosna is "really" Slovene, before the
massive resettlement in northwestern Bosnia-Hercegovina and adjacent
parts of Croatia. This sounds more like Slovene Nationalism than Serb.
So why didn't they find eachother in the Balkan wars?
Anyway, I'm always more interested in the nuances of the language
continuum than the black and white of the national Booleanum. That
applies to both ends of Štokavia. Speaking of that, I've read similar
things about the dialect of the region of Sofia viz Macedonian.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nikolaj... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen pravi:
[quote]And all up in the other end: How much of Croatia is "actually"
Slovenian. I remember from the first thing I read about the inner
workings of Serbo-Croatian, a Norwegian encyclopedia article in the
mid-eighties, that the fairly uniform Štokavian of Dalmatia, Bosnia and
Slavonia was said to give way to more varied dialects in
Central/Northern Croatia, and the dialects of the Zagreb area to have
much in common with Slovenian.
I tried to half-Slovenicize an Istrian acquaintance of mine not long
ago. "No, that's another language", he said. But I'm not sure if he
appreciated my distinction between local spoken varieties and the
written norm.
[/quote]
I would like to know that as well - what, which isoglosses, if any, are
the reason of division of Slovene from Kajkavian Croatian; or is that
just a political division - areas controled by Austria and Hungary.
Kajkavian has a lot of common with Slovenian - in phonology, morphology
(no aorist/imperfect, only one future (budem + infinitive), syntactic
formations, some vocabulary, etc...
But Štokavian and Čakavaian are definitely another languages.
http://www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=8
2.2 Relation of Slovene to other languages
Slovene is a Slavic and, consequently, an Indo-European language.
Its dialects continue the speech territory that at one time covered a
wider territory of present-day Austria, southwestern Hungary, and
northern Italy, as well as the present-day Republic of Slovenia. Shared
innovations with central Slovak dialects indicate that Slovene was
closely connected in a dialect chain to more northerly West Slavic
dialects, often referred to as Pannonian Slavic, whose speakers shifted
to Hungarian and German in the early Middle Ages, before the period of
Slavic literacy. Slovene’s closest relations today are the Kajkavian
dialect of Croatian, followed by the Čakavian dialect, both of which
form continua with the Slovene speech territory (for details see
Greenberg 2000). In view of these relations, Stammbaum taxonomies of the
Slavic languages place Slovene in the western subzone of South Slavic,
grouping it together with BCS and separating it from the eastern
subzone, which is comprised of Macedonian and Bulgarian.
In one emblematic respect Slovene (and Kajkavian Croatian) has diverged
from the majority of Slavic languages in its replacement of the reflex
for the pronoun ‘what’, descended from PIE *kwi- (PS *čь-[to] > Russian
čto, Polish co, BCS što), with the lative particle *kweh2, akin to Latin
quā. The development results from the reanalysis, first, of the lative
interrogative as a subordinating conjunction and, second, from the
addition of the pronominal marker *jь, as the inanimate subject-marking
pronoun in main clauses (see Snoj 1997 for details).
http://www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=1
5.1 Kajkavski is spoken in northwest Croatia. Features shared with
adjacent Slovene, besides kaj, include reflexes č, j where the standard
languages have ć, đ from Proto-Slavic tj, dj : noč 'night', meja
'boundary' (in some places medža); and devoicing of final obstruents:
grat from grad 'town'. Final and preconsonantal l remains: bil 'was',
Štokavski bio.
5.1.1 In endings, nouns preserve old distinctions in the plural cases:
nominative masculine gradi, feminine žene ; genitive gradof, žen ;
dative gradom, ženam ; instrumental gradi, ženami ; locative gradeh,
ženah. Genitive plural -ā and the Štokavski -ov- / -ev- long plural are
lacking. The vocative is lost. Verbs have lost aorist and imperfect. The
future, as in Slovene, consists of an auxiliary from 'to be' plus
L-participle: bum delal (feminine bum delala) 'I'll work'.
5.1.3 Kajkavski was a medium of literature until the Illyrian movement.
Poets and songwriters continue using it to good effect. The Zagreb city
sub-standard is a simplified Kajkavski (five vowels, loss of length and
accent contrasts). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nikolaj... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen pravi:
[quote]I haven't read him for a couple of years. Slovenes, then, in the sense
that everything west of the river Bosna is "really" Slovene, before the
massive resettlement in northwestern Bosnia-Hercegovina and adjacent
parts of Croatia. This sounds more like Slovene Nationalism than Serb.
[/quote]
LOL, Slovene Nationalism propagated by a Serb. :)
[quote]So why didn't they find eachother in the Balkan wars?
[/quote]
?
If you mean recent wars, they had economic and political reasons, not
nationalist.
[quote]Anyway, I'm always more interested in the nuances of the language
continuum than the black and white of the national Booleanum. That
applies to both ends of Štokavia. Speaking of that, I've read similar
things about the dialect of the region of Sofia viz Macedonian.
[/quote]
There is a dialect continuum from most north-western Slovenian dialects
is spoken down to the most eastern Bulgarian. There is, or was, also a
continuum from Slovenian up to Slovak and Czech, although now broken by
German and Hungarian. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Antnio Marques... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 17:15, Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor... at (no spam) bla.si> wrote:
[quote]Christian Weisgerber pravi:
Nikolaj <nikolaj.kor... at (no spam) bla.si> wrote:
There is a dialect continuum from most north-western Slovenian dialects
is spoken down to the most eastern Bulgarian.
I wonder what the intermediate forms look like between Bulgarian's
very reduced noun/adjective inflection and the typical Slavic one
of the more westerly languages. And isn't the Bulgarian verbal
system more complex?
First info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torlak
[/quote]
Well then. So it turns out that (Southern) Kosovo's serbs are actually
bulgarians! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:27 am
|
|