text:
User:Ivan Štambuk/Serbo-Croatian/Nationalism and Language

 * In the ex-Yugoslav lands in the nineties, the Biblical "In the beginning was the word" (John, 1.1) has turned into: "Some of us coin words as if they were knives, and some coin knives as if they were words".

Nationalism and Language: A Balkan Experience

Božidar Jakšić

The Croatian and Yugoslav writer Miroslav Krleža said in 1969: "Croatian and Serbian are one and the same language, which Croats call Croatian, and Serbs Serbian". It was an attempt to appease the passions aroused by the Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language, which he signed himself, and the Serbian response in the form of A Proposal for Consideration issued in 1967. The times were long past when, in 1924, Krleža could claim, with his sophisticated irony, that the Serbian and Croatian languages are distinguished only in accent, which "an ear that is not Serbo-Croatian finds extremely difficult to differentiate". The Declaration and A Proposal were only a prelude for subsequent long-standing debates in political and cultural area which, along with a set of other factors, tragically ended in the "third Balkan war". Similarly to many other writers, Predrag Matvejević - a disciple of Krleža's - stresses that linguistic issues are extremely sensitive political matter; in multiethnic communities, as the Yugoslav one used to be, "linguistic tolerance depended on the nature of our mutual relations, e.g. before and after the unification: whenever they were comparatively good, differences were underplayed". And conversely: whenever they were bad, differences were emphasized to the absurd.

Contrary to many European countries where language was the basis for constituting modern nations as political communities, in the part of the Balkans inhabited by intermingled Serbs, Croats and Muslim Bosniaks, membership in different religions and confessions was the basis for national division. Moreover, these nations were constituted as ethnic rather than political communities. In order to understand the recent Balkan experience of national, state, linguistic and other divisions, it is extremely important to answer the question why neither in the first (kingdom of) Yugoslavia nor in the second (socialist) Yugoslavia did the nations come to be constituted as political communities, but instead remained ethnic in character.

Today the two Yugoslavias, formed after the First and the Second World Wars, belong to history. The first was an attempt to constitute a bourgeois society, and the state, in the underdeveloped and poorly integrated geopolitical space of the Balkans, extremely diversified in economical, political and cultural terms, and even more so in national, religious and linguistic ones. This first Yugoslavia disappeared from the historical scene under the military pressure of occupying forces precisely at the moment when a modus vivendi of the juxtaposed bourgeois forces dominating the society was emerging in the public horizon. The second Yugoslavia was created during foreign occupation and civil and religious war. It was a "revolutionary" attempt to make a radical rupture in the already tender thread of civil integration of society, and to "build" a society of "social justice", at first in the orthodox Stalinist manner, and later in the form of "self-management socialism". The collapsing political regime of the second Yugoslavia pulled along into the historical abyss the society and the state as well. And what is more, the scale of tragedy and crimes accompanying the process of its disintegration bewildered the whole civilized world. While the disappearance of the first Yugoslavia from the historical scene did not mean a definitive annihilation of the idea of a community of Yugoslav peoples, this is by no means true for the disintegration of the second one.

The final breakdown of the second Yugoslavia was caused not only by internal contradictions, political and national conflicts, but also by the collapse of the so-called "real socialism" system in the world, began in the Soviet Union, and by the historical consequence of German unification, symbolically denoted by the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is the international framework of the disintegration. In the Yugoslav case, however, this framework has not yet been quite clarified. This particularly refers to the question of why Yugoslavia was less prepared than other countries to meet the historical collapse of communist systems of the 20th century, even though in its previous development elements were present which suggested it was closer to a possible democratic solution than other socialist countries. Namely, if the first Yugoslavia was a state of authoritarian government characteristic of a whole set of countries between the two world wars, the second was also an authoritarian state with totalitarian tendencies. The question, then, is: was a democratic way out possible from the system of Titoist authoritarianism, tending to totalitarianism? Such a solution was wished for by democratically oriented parts of the opposition, political and intellectual dissidents, humanistically oriented critical intellectuals, a part of civil society promoters, and by certain segments of the population at large which had developed a consciousness of their "political coming of age". How come that this democratic thrust dissipated in a wave of shallow chauvinism and state-building trance of "late-coming", "small" nations, which did not even shrink from causing bloodshed and destruction on an unprecedented scale? Why was the Yugoslav state community torn apart along the republican/national dividing lines, and what was the role played in this process by political, national and former communist leaderships? What was the role of language policies implemented in former Yugoslav republics? What was the role of the nationalist intelligentsia, particularly the powerful mass media, such as television and major newspaper houses, in all the - now former - Yugoslav republics in creating fear and blinding hatred which cancels all possibility of rational dialogue? Where in this process is the place of the "silent majority" which gathers around the powerful figures and becomes both an actor and a victim of the new Balkan bloodshed? What are the historical consequences of the "fatal attraction" of national statehood, and what is the historical significance of the "Slovene experiment" of applying violence in order to achieve national independence in the Yugoslav territory? What national and other interests have been promoted by the recent war storm in the territory of Yugoslavia? And finally, what are the chances for the citizens of former Yugoslavia to survive at all the transition to a post-communist society?

A radically new social situation of the 1990s, characterized by ethnic and religious conflicts - tens of thousands of killed and maimed people, hundreds of thousands of homeless, millions brought to ruin, war crimes, robbery and war profiteering as a novel form of the "primitive accumulation of capital" - calls for new hermeneutic keys and a new theoretical understanding. Citizens born in ex-Yugoslavia, all of them older than their newly-formed states, have been simultaneously witnesses, participants and victims - and sometimes executioners - of a boiling societal condition. Social thought, in these turbulent times, has found itself in a sort of historical vacuum. The crucial question in this respect is how to organize theoretically the overly rich empirical material, how to reflect it theoretically, how to articulate theoretical presuppositions of the current historical development at a meta-level? Is it possible for social theory, which in the ex-Yugoslav space had reached a relatively high level in criticizing the so-called real socialism, to overcome its insufficiency in terms of new theoretical assumptions and offer an adequate set of heuristic and hermeneutical tools for understanding the tragedy of the times?

A Slovene writer speaks of the six Yugoslav peoples of which four share the same language and two have their own separate languages. In any case, what we have here is a high degree of linguistic affinity. The language shared by four Yugoslav peoples, with slight variations in linguistic expression - Croats, Serbs, Muslim Bosniaks and Montenegrins - was, fortunately or not, named Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. But a common language did not facilitate a better mutual understanding of ethnically akin peoples. From a means of communication among people the language was increasingly turning into a symbol of the struggle for nation-states. It was transformed into an instrument of war propaganda and a seed of destructive hatred. In the "third Balkan war" in this century, along with ruining all the common institutions of the Yugoslav state, a language was also killed: the Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. The murder was committed deliberately and designedly, and served exclusively political goals. Each of the conflicting sides made its particular contribution to this murder. In performing this act the sides in war easily found a common language.

Thus Serbo-Croatian in all its varieties, as the shared language of some Yugoslav peoples, has joined "dead" languages, such as ancient Greek, Latin, or ancient Slavic. The citizens of the newly-created ex-Yugoslav states have been wonder-struck: they speak a "dead" language, and have become polyglots. They can communicate simply and easily in four languages: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin.

Obviously the matter was not in the name alone. In the process of transforming Yugoslav Titoist totalitarianism into chauvinist totalitarianisms of the newly-formed states, the struggle for a distinct national language occupied a special place and was extremely fierce. Linguists, and not only linguists, particularly excelled in it. There have been very few people who, like Dubravko Škiljan in Zagreb or Ranko Bugarski and Ljubiša Rajić in Belgrade, have managed to resist the call of the national "trumpets of Jericho". As Ljubiša Rajić rightly remarks, from a means of communication the language has turned into a means of national identification and subsequently, having become a symbol of the nation, into a means of separation.

In the ex-Yugoslav lands in the nineties, the Biblical In the beginning was the word" (John, 1.1) has turned into: "Some of us coin words as if they were knives, and some coin knives as if they were words". Or in other words, Serbs and Croats settled the difference in pronouncing the name "John" - Jovan/Ivan - with the help of a bullet. The national name of the language was built into the foundations of the nation-state, and the language itself was harnessed to war propaganda and production of hate. Some foreign writers also noticed this: "The bulk of the Yugoslav intelligentsia has proven that manufacturing hatred and preparing civil war are today still among the foremost tasks of culture creators".

If language, transformed into a language of hate, served war preparations and propaganda, the unified linguistic tissue of the Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language was systematically destroyed before and during the war. In the overall effort to ensure each people to get its own state and to speak its own language, different from the language of the Other, the enemy, at any price, the chief victims were exactly the peoples in whose name all this had been done. Thus the Croatian language in official usage has been flooded with archaisms, avoidance of "Serbisms" and internationalisms, and particularly with coining words which nobody had ever used, nor will use. Most citizens of Croatia looked at these efforts with mild irony or overt contempt. Many of the words of the Croatian Orwellian "newspeak" have become a point for making jokes, and used only as an object of derision. In this way people have actually been preserving the genius of their own language. The test of guessing which word is genuinely "Croatian", and which is "Serbian" (according to the recently published Differential Dictionary of Croatian and Serbian Languages), would hardly be passed even by the most enthusiastic nationalists. To give just one example: Serbian nationalists consider the word obitelj: ("family") to be a disgusting Croatism, even though the word is part of daily prayers of Orthodox monks in the Hilandar monastery, and is neither Serbian nor Croatian in origin.

The damage done by the Serbian side in the effort to separate strictly Serbian from Croatian has been no lesser. The largest damage has been inflicted in terms of impoverishing Serbian culture, and in two basic directions. The effort to lay constitutional and legal grounds for proclaiming the Cyrillic alphabet the only official alphabet in Serbia opens the door to abolishing bi-alphabetism (Cyrillic and Latin). Some international classifications automatically classify books printed in Cyrillic as belonging to Serbian culture, and those printed in the Latin alphabet as Croatian. Many Serbian nationalists feel this to be a result of a "world conspiracy" against the Serbian people, failing to realize how much they themselves contribute to this practice by suppressing Latin alphabet in Serbian culture. Serbian and Croatian nationalists equally insist that joint Serbo-Croatian departments and studies at universities all over the world be separated, but they never ask who is going to pay for increased expenses, why the interest for the studies thus divided has been dropping, and why some of these departments are about to be closed. The situation is still worse in the part of Bosnia-Herzegovina which consists of the Republika Srpska. There the "ekavian" dialect has been introduced into official usage, although nobody born and permanently living in Bosnia-Herzegovina has ever spoken this dialect. What is particularly important, this practice has been introduced on radio and television. Today Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina listen to one dialect, and speak another. Ranko Bugarski rightfully points to the "linguistic schizophrenia of this otherwise heavily afflicted people". Such practice was not imposed on Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Croats or Bosniaks, but by their own political and cultural elite, in order to separate Serbs as much as possible from their neighbors with whom they had lived side by side for centuries. The intention is quite simple: to prove at any price, employing not only "ethnic", but also "linguistic cleansing", the thesis that living together is impossible.

It was long ago that in this "decay of ours in the form of fragmentation" Miroslav Krleža saw a "sinister confusion of parochial megalomania". It would be unjust not to add that with slight modifications the thesis of Serbian elite that living together is impossible has been propagated by Croatian and Bosniak political and cultural elites as well. The elites have found a common language, not only at the expense of the rival peoples, but also of their own one.

Muslim Bosniaks have found themselves in a peculiar situation. They sought to confirm their national identity by coining a particular name for their language. They called it, simply, the Bosnian language. At first sight, there was something reasonable in it. If Serbs and Croats renounced the complex name of Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian, writes the Muslim linguist Senahid Halilović, "then it would be too much to expect from Muslims to be more vigorous in advocating a name which did not even contain their own name... In such a situation, it is self-understandable that Muslims will bring the Bosnian language back to usage". The writer Alija Isaković claims that Bosnian differs from Serbian and Croatian as much as the latter two languages differ from each other. The problem is, of course, that Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language in linguistic terms. The problem has been solved by excessive usage of Turcisms, the letter "h", and archaisms. The differences must be put to the fore. Thus the citizens of one and the same state - Bosnia-Herzegovina - are divided into two political entities, Bosniak-Croat federation and the Republika Srpska (though what this is supposed to mean remains highly unclear), and forced to speak three languages, although they actually speak only one - the one traditionally spoken in Bosnia. And even these three newly-formed languages, in official propaganda, converge into one - the language of hatred.

In Montenegro, which has a tradition of statehood, efforts are also noticeable to emphasize the existence of a Montenegrin language. In recent history, one of the originators of the idea of a distinct Montenegrin language was the Croatian communist leader Vladimir Bakarić. The idea was further strengthened by the effort to expand the ekavian dialect in Montenegro - which had never been used there. Thus Serbian nationalists, seeking to separate Serbian from Croatian, also contributed to a gradual separation of Montenegrin from Serbian. And some Montenegrin writers have suggested that three new letters should be added to the "Montenegrin" Cyrillic and Latin alphabet! Who can write and use these letters, apart from themselves, is difficult to say. What matters is to confirm national statehood by a distinct national language.

In the end, I shall go back to Krleža, who ironically asserted that Serbs and Croats are two peoples divided by one language and one God. Godly matters are not the subject of this paper. And linguistically speaking, the single language once spoken by Serbs, Croats, Muslim Bosniaks and Montenegrins has now been divided into four languages. Some intellectuals have been promoting and supporting this policy, some opposing it. But the fact is indisputable that the policy of the so-called ethnic cleansing is part and parcel of the policy of establishing nation-states in the territory of former Yugoslavia. This policy has been formulated and implemented by national political, and partly cultural elites in all the newly-created states. Therefore it is necessary to put it clearly: the pursuit of the purity of the national language is a relapse of the criminal policy of the so-called ethnic cleansing. Like all historically belated phenomena, forming nations (and nation-states) on linguistic foundations in the Balkans at the end of the 20th century has acquired monstrous shapes. The tremendous war tragedy, killed men, women and children, the expelled and refugees, wrecked villages and cities, destroyed nature and human environment, testify to the true character of the policy pursued by national elites. Perhaps one day Serbs, Croats, Muslim Bosniaks and Montenegrins will really speak different languages, but even then - provided they do not exterminate each other in the meantime - they will have to live together. Isn't it better that they do it in peace? Can it be than none of them has been able to learn a lesson from the words of Nikola Tesla: "I take pride in my Serbian name, and in my Croatian homeland!" If we look at all that has been done in the "third Balkan war" in the name of national interests and purity of the national language, many people do not have much to take pride in, but do have a lot to be ashamed of.

(The paper, published in Belgrade 1997 and Sarajevo 1998 in Serbo-Croatian language)

Dr. Božidar Jakšić Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory Belgrade


text:
dvojitý

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) double

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) double

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: dvojitý


text:
言の葉

Etymology
Compound of and, joined by the genitive particle.

Noun

 * 1) words
 * 2) poetry
 * 1) poetry

title: 言の葉


text:
trojitý

Adjective

 * 1) triple

title: trojitý


text:
raz-de-marée

Noun

 * 1) tsunami
 * 2) storm surge
 * 3) tidal wave
 * 4)  landslide
 * 1)  landslide

title: raz-de-marée


text: clothes-brushes

title: clothes-brushes


text:
rayer

Etymology
From. Found in as. Cf. however also 🇨🇬,, possibly from 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to line, to make lines on, to mark with lines (e.g. a piece of paper)
 * 2) to cross out, to cross off (remove something from a list)
 * 3) to wipe off (remove)
 * 1) to wipe off (remove)

title: rayer


text:
phréatique

Etymology
From the stem of +.

Adjective

 * 1)  phreatic

title: phréatique


text:
surexploiter

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to overexploit

title: surexploiter


text: non-empirical

title: non-empirical


text:
brader

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) One who roasts or fries meat; in particular one who is also a meat vendor.

Etymology
From or, from.

Verb

 * 1) to sell at cut-price, to sell in a sale
 * 2) to sell off
 * 3) to sell down the river
 * 1) to sell down the river

title: brader


text:
opazovati

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to observe

title: opazovati


text:
Citations:gelotophilia

 * Science News August 1, 2009 Page 22
 * "To provide a more complete picture of how people deal with laughter, Ruch and his colleagues have recently expanded their studies to describe two other humor-related concepts: The joy of being laughed at - or gelatophilia - and the joy of laughing at others, or katagelasticism."

title: Citations:gelotophilia


text:
северен

Adjective

 * 1) northern, north, northerly
 * 2) northward, northwardly
 * 1) northward, northwardly

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) northern

title: северен


text:
sell off

Verb

 * 1)  To sell asset(s) for the purpose of getting rid of them quickly rather than for maximizing profit.
 * 2) * March 15 2012, Soctt Tobias, The Kid With A Bike [Review]
 * When Cyril goes searching for his deadbeat father, he’s also looking for his bike, and he’s devastated to discover his dad sold it off to make ends meet.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * Finnish: myydä pois
 * French: vendre à perte,
 * Greek:
 * Japanese: ,
 * Spanish: ,

title: sell off


text: Citations:katagelasticism

title: Citations:katagelasticism


text:
plate-forme pétrolière

Noun

 * 1) oil rig

title: plate-forme pétrolière


text:
oléoduc

Etymology
From +, on the model of.

Noun

 * 1) oil pipeline

title: oléoduc


text:
bæger

Etymology
From, from. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) cup
 * 2) tub
 * 3) calyx
 * 4) dicebox

title: bæger


text: personal hygienes

title: personal hygienes


text:
източен

Adjective

 * 1) eastern, east, easterly
 * 2) eastward, eastwardly

title: източен


text:
τρίκο

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) knitting, knitted fabric
 * 2) knitting

title: τρίκο


text:
dehydratace

Noun

 * 1) dehydration

Related terms

 * See

title: dehydratace


text: landdieren

title: landdieren


text:
User:Ivan Štambuk/Serbo-Croatian/Sociolinguistic Analysis of Serbo-Croatian

Sociolinguistic Analysis of "Serbo-Croatian"

Sean McLennan Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 18, Winter 1996, ISSN 0823-0579

Nationalism is a phenomenon that has been responsible for a great deal of conflict and bloodshed throughout history, perhaps because national identity is by no means transparent nor easy to define. It is intimately tied to individual perceptions of unity and identity such as history, religion, culture, and language. The relationship between nationalism and these perceptions is also not one way. They both affect and define each other. In fact, sometimes national identity and factors such as language or religion, are treated as being almost synonymous. Such a situation currently exists in the former Yugoslavia.

Serbia and Croatia have had a long history of conflict on many levels. Daniel Solanović quotes, "The war in the former Yugoslavia is being fought on several fronts, some of which are more salient than others. Even our dictionaries have become battle fields, where mortar shells have been replaced by the coinage of nouns in the effort of separating us from them." This "dictionary front", of course refers to the use of the language, "Serbo-Croatian". The common objective analysis is that there is one language, "Serbo-Croatian", of which there are three main dialects: Štokavian, Kajkavian, and Čakavian (the names are based on the word for "what" in each dialect). Štokavian also has three dialects: Ekavian, Ijekavian, and Ikavian (the names based on the phonological variation between e, ije, and i). Ijekavian is the dialect considered to be standard Croatian and Ekavian is the dialect considered to be standard Serbian.

The general attitude of Croats is that Croatian (Štokavian - Ijekavian) and Serbian (Štokavian - Ekavian) are completely autonomous languages and as such, Croats try to emphasize the differences. Serbs however, are trying to down play those differences, taking the position that there is only one language with several variants. Regardless, Croats appear to be the most vehement in questions of language, mainly because of the perception that Serbian had been imposed upon them. Currently, a movement to label all Serbian words and remove them from Croatian use is underway. Radicals may even completely alienate individuals (indeed, even cause bodily harm) for the use of any markedly Serbian terms or styles. More commonly, it is just emphatically discouraged. This is a particularly arbitrary movement, for many of these "Serbian" words have commonly been used by Croatians and it seems that the labelling of words as "Serbian" or not is more politically motivated than etymologically. In fact, the movement has required the coinage of new words (using "Croatian" roots and affixation and compounding) for many meanings that had no word other than the "Serbian". The movement has also required the translation of foreign words such as common brand names and technological terms that were borrowings from other languages (Personal Consultation). Ironically, it appears that Croatians with language variants similar to Serbs are looked down upon as much as Serbs themselves.

There are, of course, differences in the dialects of Serbs and Croats - mainly in the phonology and lexicon - however, this is hardly clear cut. For one thing, the two variants are completely mutually intelligible; the variation is systematic; and, as with any language, there is a continuum of variation that does not adhere to the political boundaries in the area. As well, the dialects of Ijekavian (Croatian) and Ekavian (Serbian) are more similar to each other than Ijekavian is to Kajkavian or Čakavian even though the latter three are all considered dialects of Croatian.

Since, obviously, language and politics are so tightly entwined with each other in this area, it is necessary to look at the political history of the area in order to see how various influences have directed the development of the variants in Serbo-Croatian.

History of the Balkans: The Slavs came to the Balkans (or alternately known as Illyria) around the seventh century: the Slovenes to the north and the Serbs and Croats to the south. With them they brought "Paleo-Croatian" a branch of "Paleo-Slavonic" and there was very little linguistic variation (Franolić 1984).

Croatia at this time was influenced by the Frankish Empire in the North and the Byzantine Empire in the south. It was also at this time that the Croats were converted to Christianity under the Roman Catholics. Because of this, Croats adopted Old Church Slavonic from the Macedonians and modified it into "Croatian Slavonic", written in Glagolitic. This was used by the church until 1965 when the Vatican decided that it was acceptable to use the vernacular during services. Croatian Slavonic is considered to be the first Croatian literary language (Franolić 1984).

Bulgaria and the Byzantine Empire were constantly fighting over Serbia during this period and consequently, Serbia changed hands several times. It was around 800 that the Serbs were won over to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Around 900 Croatia shook off its oppressors and emerged as a unit centered in Biograd on the Dalmatian Coast. Serbia, meanwhile, experienced various civil wars between rival factions through out the country - mainly between Montenegro and Hercegovina (in the West) and Raška (in the East). Eventually, around 1100, power shifted to Raška and Serbia was born. Around the same time, Hungary took over Croatia and its center moved to Zagreb. Croatia remained under Hungarian control for over eight hundred years (with occasional interruption), although it did maintain a great deal of autonomy and internal independence. At this time as well, the vernacular written in Glagolitic came to be used by the government and for local literature.

Between 1100 and 1300, the Serbian Empire (centered in Skoplje) grew through the development of mining and agriculture, and through the use of the Orthodox Church's influence to build internal stability and quash Latin influences. About the middle of the fourteenth century, the Serbian Empire began to fall to the Ottoman Empire and by the late 1500's, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Hungary were under the control of the Turks. The Ottoman Empire, however, allowed a great deal of autonomy and tolerated all the religions and languages in the area.

Croatian, during the sixteenth century, was heavily influenced by Italian because of the renaissance and the Croats' desire for Croatian to be at least as significant. Consequently, the Latin alphabet became widespread throughout Croatia and literature blossomed in all of the dialects. Some writers even consciously mixed dialects in an effort to amalgamate them. Spelling varied greatly, although it was somewhat standardized by the press. Later in the 1600's, there showed a marked convergence towards a standard based on Štokavian - Ikavian.

The area remained, for the most part, under the control of the Ottoman Empire until its decline in the late 1600's, at which point, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia were recovered by Austria. Over the next 50 years, areas of Serbia passed back and forth between Austria and Turkey until it finally rested back in Turkish hands. While under Turkish control this time, the Serbs were severely repressed - the Serb Orthodox Church was even taken over by the Greek patriarchate. In 1804, Serbs rose against their oppressors (aided by Russia) and managed to gain territory and assert the independence of the Serbian Church. Unfortunately, because of Napoleon's influence in Europe, by 1815 they were again under Turkish rule; however, they had won autonomy. It was not until this point that vernacular Serbia became seen in literature - until then, Serbs wrote in Russianized Church Slavonic or "Slaveno-Serbski".

Meanwhile, because of Napoleon, there was a growing movement towards the union of southern Slavs called the "Illyrian Movement" and in general, nationalism in all south Slavic states increased dramatically (although the Serbs were against Illyrianism). Independently, Serbs and Croats were trying to standardize the dialects under the Štokavian - Ijekavian dialect. However, even though there were efforts to come to agreement (The Vienna Literary Agreement), because there was very little real contact between Serbs and Croats and because of certain ideological differences, nothing was ever really accomplished. As well, the Serbs shifted to using Ekavian as their standard.

The Illyrians supported borrowing of words into the language in an effort to modernize it for use in education and science and technology. Their borrowing took three forms: Unfortunately, the Illyrian movement eventually fell to Croatian independence and Serbian and Croatian continued to develop independently.
 * 1) adoption of dialect words and the resurrection of obsolete words,
 * 2) borrowing of words from other Slavic languages and loan translation from German, and
 * 3) coinage of new words from native elements by affixation and compounding.

Throughout the 1800's, conflict over control of the area continued between Austria, Hungary, Turkey, and Russia. In 1877, Russia won Serbian independence from Turkey, and in 1882, Serbia was declared a kingdom. Conflicts in the Balkans were complicated by both Serbian and Croatian designs on the rest of the Balkans to create "Greater Croatia" and "Greater Serbia". With this development, it seemed that the idea of a Yugoslav state was lost. However, after the Serbs were successful in defeating Turkey, the Slavs under Austria-Hungary were reinspired and under new leaders, the Serbs and Croats and other Slavs pulled together against Austria-Hungary.

After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and the beginning of World War I, a Slavic unity seemed to be the only hope for Slavs to keep from being overrun, and so in 1917, Yugoslavia was born. It was declared as a constitutional, democratic, and parliamentary monarchy, with equality for the two alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic) and the three religions (Roman Catholic, Moslem, and Eastern Orthodox). During World War II, Yugoslavia was defeated, and partitioned and occupied between the Axis powers. The Communist Party lead by Tito was instrumental in forcing the Axis Powers out of Yugoslavia and after the war, finding no organized political opposition, Tito formed a new, communist, Yugoslav state completely independent of Russian influence - the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. Freedom of religion was promoted (as well as the division of religion and state) under Tito's government and while the Orthodox and Moslem faiths adjusted to the new government, the Roman Catholic Church remained vehemently opposed to communism. Under Tito, Serbo-Croatian was declared the official language and it was required by all citizens. The media retained in the various local standards and languages; however, when Serbo-Croatian was taught in schools, Ekavian, the Serb standard was the one that was taught.

Tito remained leader of Yugoslavia until his death in 1980, at which point Yugoslavia began to disintegrate. Eventually, Serbia tried to take over power in the government and this lead to Slovenia's and Croatia's declaration of independence and the war that is currently waged.

The actual differences between the dialects Ijekavian and Ekavian are mainly limited to orthographic, phonological, and lexical, although there are other minor grammatical and semantic differences (for example, Ekavian has a borrowed Turkish affix).

Orthographic:
 * Serbian is mainly associated with the Cyrillic alphabet, although the Latin alphabet is also quite widespread. Croatian employs the Latin alphabet almost exclusively.

Phonological:
 * There is basically only one phonological distinction - the regular variance between /e/ (Ekavian) and /je/. (Likewise the sound varies with /i/ in Ikavian.)

Lexical:
 * Here there are a great many distinctions. Such is to be expected considering the different influences each variant has experienced over the course of time.  For example, Turkish heavily influenced the speech of Serbs, and literary Serbian still has many of these borrowings:

However, again, there are no clear dialectal boundaries. Croatians that are emphatically nationalistic have used some of these words all their lives. As well, the variant spoken in Bosnia has been described as "Ijekavian using Ekavian words" (referring to the fact that they use the "ije" phonological variant and Ekavian lexical variants).

Thus, we are left with the question, "Are Serbian and Croatian the same language or not?" This, of course, is not easy to answer nor will the answer remain constant throughout various contexts.

From a linguistic standpoint, we must come to the conclusion that they are simply dialects of the same language. There are no more variations between Serbian and Croatian than there are between Canadian English and any other dialect of English, indeed, perhaps even fewer in some cases. Syntactic and morphological constructions remain the same and the languages are mutually intelligible. Even though there are words marked as either"Serbian" or "Croatian", everyone is at least aware of the words and know their eanings. Therefore, the vocabulary of each can be said to be part of the lexicon of a speaker even though it may not be utilised.

Dragutin Subotić, Ph.D. and Nevill Forbes, M.A., Ph.D. had this to say in the preface of their book "Serbian Grammar" (1926):

"The title of this book has been chosen for the sake of simplicity. The full name of the language is Serbo-Croatian. It must be emphasized that Croatian, except for slight differences of dialect and vocabulary, is absolutely the same language as Serbian, only written with the Latin alphabet with diacritic signs. Knowledge of both of the Cyrillic and Latin (Croatian) alphabets is indispensable to any student of Serbo-Croatian"

Politically, however, the variants are quite different. It is human nature to try to define identity with other humans and quite often a basis of that identity is common language. It becomes not only a tool for communication, but a symbol of identity - of a group's autonomy. Such is the case here. Regardless of the linguistic facts presented, on the whole, the speakers of the language perceive the variants as being different languages. If we compare Serbian and Croatian using Bell's seven criteria (1976) for language, we must conclude that they are, indeed, separate languages.

 * 1) Standardization:  Both Serbian and Croatian are standardized.  Despite the obvious alphabet differences, there are different standardized spellings for the same words. As well, media and literature use both variants.
 * 2) Vitality:  Obviously, both variants have a living community of speakers.
 * 3) Historicity:  Although Serbian and Croatian have shared very similar histories and at times, language was a basis for unity, this is not true now.  In fact, historical differences are being emphasized (primarily by Croats).  For example the influence of Turkish on Serbian because of the years of control by the Ottoman Empire.
 * 4) Autonomy:  Croats certainly feel that they speak a different language.  The opposite appears to be true however, with Serbs. Despite this incongruity, it cannot be said that there is agreement.
 * 5) Reduction:  Obviously, the conflict has led to animosity between the nationalities, and therefore, they look down on each other in general.  However, I don't feel that we can claim that either variant is seen as a sub-variety of the other.  If anything, the feeling is that they have nothing to do with each other at all (Personal Consultation).  There is no reduction in the uses of the language - both are used in all levels of society in their colloquial and standard forms.  In other words, it appears that it is the nationality, of which the language is a marker, that is stigmatized within each community, not the language itself.
 * 6) Mixture:  In neither case do the speakers feel that their language is impure or is a marginal variety of some other language.  As well, Croats at least, believe that their variant has a purity distinct from Serbian in that they perceive Serbian as being "impure", having more outside influences from other languages than Croatian (Personal Consultation).
 * 7) Presence of De Facto Norms:  Both Croatian and Serbian have a continuum of "good" and "poor" speakers.  Unsurprisingly, the poorest speakers of Croatian are those with a variant closest to Serbian.  However, the perceptions of "good" and "bad" are not only restricted to Croatian vs Serbian; it extends to regional variants and register variants within the dialects of Croatian and Serbian.

So, therefore, according to these criteria, we find that, at least from the perspective of those involved (particularly Croats), Serbian and Croatian can be considered different languages.

Obviously, the question of language in the former Yugoslavia is a complicated one and here, I have only scratched the surface. This has mainly been a discussion of the standard dialects of Serbian and Croatian. The situation becomes more complicated if we look at the other languages in the area such as Slovenian and Macedonian. As well, there are increased movements for autonomy among other groups - Bosnians, for example. Radicals suggest that the variant spoken in Bosnia be proclaimed a language distinct from Serbian and Croatian. Also, because of the limited sources available, it is possible that this discussion is biased in perspective. A more in depth study into the linguistic attitudes of the various groups in the former Yugoslavia would certainly be called for and would reveal much.

One thing is clear, however, this is a pivotal point in the history of the people in this area as well as their language. The result of this conflict could well determine whether the variants present are driven apart enough so that in the future they do indeed become two distinct languages.


text:
ταξί

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) taxi

title: ταξί


text:
wipe off

Verb

 * 1)  To remove (something such as dirt) by wiping.
 * 2)  To clean (something), removing any dirt from it, by wiping it.
 * 3)  To destroy completely, leaving no trace.
 * wipe a species off the planet Earth
 * Wipe his data off the computer.
 * Global warming could wipe some coastal areas off the map.
 * 1)  To destroy completely, leaving no trace.
 * wipe a species off the planet Earth
 * Wipe his data off the computer.
 * Global warming could wipe some coastal areas off the map.
 * wipe a species off the planet Earth
 * Wipe his data off the computer.
 * Global warming could wipe some coastal areas off the map.
 * Global warming could wipe some coastal areas off the map.

Translations

 * Arabic: مَسَحَ
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * French:
 * German:
 * Hebrew:
 * Japanese:
 * Korean:
 * Latin: tergeō, dētergeō
 * Polish:
 * Russian:, , ,

 * French:
 * Hebrew:

title: wipe off


text:
Talk:categorical imperative

Categorical and hypothetical
It should be noted that Kant's concept of "categorical imperative" contrasts to "hypothetical imperative", the latter missing an "in order to" or "so that" clause; so "drink so that you do not die of dehydration!" is a hypothetical imperative while "drink!" is a categorical imperative; so my understanding anyway. I am unsure how to work this into the current definition, which reads more like a description than a definition to me. That said, a categorical imperative in the presented sense is to be distinguished from the categorical imperative--a particular imperative, and from a categorical imperative in the sense "one of the formulations of the categorical imperative." --Dan Polansky 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this distinction. 70.175.192.217 23:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Kantian moral law
according to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, an unconditional moral law applying to all rational beings and independent of all personal desires and motives Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:categorical imperative


text:
élytre

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  elytron

title: élytre


text:
Καθαρά Δευτέρα

Noun

 * 1) Clean Monday, the first day of the Greek Orthodox Lent

title: Καθαρά Δευτέρα


text: Καθαρή Δευτέρα

title: Καθαρή Δευτέρα


text:
apilanlehti

Noun

 * 1) cloverleaf, trefoil leaf of a clover plant

title: apilanlehti


text:
amenuiser

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to make thinner
 * 2)  to thin out
 * 3)  to get slimmer; to slim
 * 4)  to dwindle; to run low

title: amenuiser


text:
soupçonnable

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) suspicious worthy of suspicion

title: soupçonnable


text:
nostalgique

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) nostalgic

Noun

 * 1) nostalgic person who displays nostalgia

title: nostalgique


text:
User:Ivan Štambuk/Serbo-Croatian/Britannica

Encyclopedia Britannica's take on Serbo-Croatian. Excerpts from the free 1911 edition, on the article on Servia:

"The Serbs (Srbi, as they call themselves) are a Slavonic nation, ethnically and by language the same as the Croats (Hrvati, Horvati, Croati). The Croats, however, are Roman Catholics and use the Latin alphabet, while the Serbs belong to the Orthodox Church and use the Cyrillic alphabet, augmented by special signs for the special sounds of the Serb language."

"There can be no doubt that in the south-eastern group of the Slavonic languages Serbo-Croatian and Slovene form a special closely-connected group, in which the Servian and the Croat languages are almost identical. Both the Servians and the Croats arrived in the first half of the 7th century (or more precisely about A.D. 635) in the northwestern corner of the Balkan Peninsula. There they met the partly Romanized Illyrians, and in course of time absorbed them. There can be little doubt that this absorption softened and enriched the Serbo-Croatian dialects, a process to which climatic conditions and intercourse with Italy also contributed, until Serbo-Croatian became one of the richest and most melodious of Slavonic languages."

"To facilitate this reform, to overcome the ecclesiastical prejudices of the Roman Catholic Croats against the Eastern Orthodox Servians, and vice versa, certain Croatian patriots, led by Ljudevit Gaj, proposed that all the Slavonic peoples in the north-western part of the Balkan Peninsula should call themselves Illyri and their language Illyrian. The appellation 'Serbo-Croatian' for the literary language of both nations now finds more favour. The great dictionary compiled and published by the South Slavonic Academy of Agram is called The Lexicon of the Servian or Croatian Language. Although the Croats write and print in Latin characters, while the Servians write and print in Cyrillic, and although many a Servian cannot read Croatian books, and vice versa, the literary language of both nations is one and the same."

From the article on Croatia-Slavonia:

"Croats and Serbs together constitute a single branch of the Slavonic race, frequently called the Serbo-Croatian branch. The literary language of the two nations is identical, but the Croats use the Latin alphabet, while the Serbs prefer a modified form of the Cyrillic. The two nations have also been politically separated since the 7th century, if not for a longer period; but this division has produced little difference of character or physical type. Even the costume of the Croatian peasantry, to whom brilliant colours and intricate embroideries are always dear, proclaims their racial identity with the Serbs; their songs, dances and musical instruments, the chief part of their customs and folk-lore, their whole manner of life, so little changed by its closer contact with Western civilization, may be studied in Servia (q.v.) itself. In both countries rural society was based on the old-fashioned household community, or zadruga, which still survives in the territories that formed the Military Frontier, though everywhere tending to disappear and be replaced by individual ownership."

"The Orthodox Serbs, moreover, use a modified form of the Cyrillic alphabet, while the Roman Catholic Croats use Latin characters, except in a few liturgical books which are written in the ancient Glagolitic script. As the literary language of both nations is now practically the same, and is, indeed, commonly known as 'SerboCroatian'.."

The the modern day, 2009, issue of Britannica only has an article on Serbo-Croatian language, and not on any individual languages emerged in the 1990s:

"South Slavic language that is the native language of most speakers in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. It historically served as an important secondary language in Slovenia and Macedonia. The Croats, who are Roman Catholic and who lived for centuries under Venetian or Austro-Hungarian rule, and the Serbs, who are Eastern Orthodox in religion and who, after a short period of independence, lived for five centuries under Turkish domination, have adopted distinct standard (literary) forms, Croatian and Serbian; with the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Bosnian form must also be recognized. Vocabulary and pronunciation differences exist among the three but form no real barrier to communication. The Croats and Bosnians use the Roman, or Latin, alphabet; the Serbs and Montenegrins use Cyrillic."

From the article on Bosnia and Herzegovina (pretty-much the same thing can be found on the articles on Croatia and Serbia): :

"The mother tongue of the vast majority is the Serbo-Croatian language, but it is now known as Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian, depending on the speaker’s ethnic and political affiliation. There are some minor regional variations in pronunciation and vocabulary, but all variations spoken within Bosnia and Herzegovina are more similar to one another than they are to, for example, the speech of Belgrade (Serbia) or Zagreb (Croatia). A Latin and a Cyrillic alphabet exist, and both have been taught in schools and used in the press, but the rise of nationalism in the 1990s prompted a Serb alignment with Cyrillic and a Croat and Bosniac alignment with the Latin alphabet."


text:
dehydrovat

Verb

 * 1) to dehydrate

title: dehydrovat


text:
αχλάδι

Etymology
From <, from , from.

Noun

 * 1) pear

title: αχλάδι


text:
κεράσι

Etymology
< a diminutive of.

Noun

 * 1) cherry

title: κεράσι


text:
dehydratovat

Verb

 * 1) to dehydrate

Related terms

 * See

title: dehydratovat


text:
dehydrovaný

Adjective

 * 1) dehydrated

title: dehydrovaný


text:
dehydratovaný

Adjective

 * 1) dehydrated

title: dehydratovaný


text:
dehydrace

Noun

 * 1) dehydration

title: dehydrace


text:
eritasoliittymä

Noun

 * 1) interchange highway junction in which the roads are separated on different levels and connected by ramps

title: eritasoliittymä


text:
User:Ivan Štambuk/Serbo-Croatian/Native linguists

Here are the opinions of various Croatian linguists, relevant to the problem of Serbo-Croatian language.

Mate Kapović, Ph.D. In comparative Balto-Slavic linguistics, is young and prominent Croatian Slavist. Has published a university handbook on Proto-Indo-European, and is currently writing Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije ("History of Croatian Accentuation"). Published numerous articles, and participated on major conferences such as IWoBA (of which he was one of the founders). Currently teaches Proto-Indo-European phonology and morphology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Also an expert on (Serbo-)Croatian dialectology. He recently published an article is in the magazine Kolo, published by the top Croatian cultural institution Matica hrvatska, in a special issue celebrating the 40th anniversery of the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language, which is generally perceived an extremely important event in the emancipation of "Croatian language". However, as a scientist, even Kapović couldn't escape from some of the undisputed facts:

"Dijalekatski gledano, hrvatski su i srpski nedvojbeno jedan jezik."

Translation:

"From the dialectal viewpoint, Croatian and Serbian are doubtless one language."

"Postoji i realna potreba da za standardni hrvatski, srpski, bošnjački i crnogorski jezik postoji i jedan sveobuhvatni naziv."

Translation:

"There is a real need to encompass the standard Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Motenegrin by a single term."

Note the adjective standard - the common term that would encompass the Neoštokavian words that are shared by all of the standards. He later laments how the term Serbo-Croatian is inappropriate for various political reasons and so on. However, he admits that the term is needed (be it "BCS", or whatever).

Dubravko Škiljan, recently deceased, wrote several dozen books, some 250 papers, was a regular professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.

On the question on the differences between Croatian and Serbian language, in an interview in 1996 to the Serbian daily Vreme, he responds:

"Pitate to sasvim krivu osobu, jer ja sam valjda posljednji u Hrvatskoj koji javno tvrdi da su tipološki i strukturalno, dakle sa stajališta karakteristika koje su inherentne jezičkoj strukturi, hrvatski i srpski jezik - pa i bošnjački i crnogorski - još jedan te isti jezik. Čini se da se to može dokazivati, na primjer, time što je njihov fonološki sistem jedan. Najbliži tome da se izdvoji kao poseban jezik nije hrvatski nego crnogorski - onog trenutka kada u svoj standardni jezik uvedu meko Š, Ž i Z kao posebne foneme, koji će vjerovatno imati, što nije neophodno, i posebne grafičke znakove, oni ce napraviti puno odlučniji korak nego što su sve promjene učinjene ovdje u svrhu razdvajanja jezika. Jer, to je nešto što čvrsto definira jezičnu strukturu, broj ili sistem fonema"

"You are asking the wrong person, because I guess I am one of the last people in Croatia that publicly states that typological and structurally, i.e. from the viewpoints of characteristics inherent in the linguistic structure, Croatian and Serbian - and also Bosnian and Montenegrin - are still one and the same language. That can be proved, for example, by the fact that they all have the same phonological system. The most opportunistic to secede as a separate language is not Croatian but Montenegrin - at the moment it introduces soft Š, Ž i Z as separate phonemes, which it will probably have, and which is not completely necessary, and special graphemes for them, it will make a much more decisive step than all of the changes that have yet been made in separating these languages. If there is something that firmly defines the language structure, that is the number or system of phonemes".

Commenting on the changes in the Croatian lexis during the nationalist period in the 1990s, in 1995:

"Ljudi su doista počeli upotrebljavati termine poput 'tijekom', 'obveza' ili 'oporba', što znači da je tih nekoliko elemenata prihvaćeno u svakodnevnom jeziku. Međutim tendencija praktičkog razlikovanja hrvatskog od srpskog jezika u svojoj dubini nije zahvatila govornike, pa čak niti sve one koji se pismeno izražavaju. Oni ne znaju procijeniti što jest hrvatski jezik, i koji izraz se može, a koji se ne može upotrebljavati. Postoje možda samo dva-tri čovjeka koji 'znaju' da su savladali taj problem razlikovanja. (1995.)"

"People indeed started to use the terms such as tijekom:, obveza: or oporba:, which means that some of these elements have entered the everyday speech. However, the tendency of practical differentiation of Croatian and Serbian language in its depth has not yet caught all the speakers, not even those that express themselves literary. The do not know how to estimate what is Croatian language, and what expression can, and which cannot be used. There are perhaps only two-three persons that 'know' how to deal with that differentiation issue."

Ivo Pranjković, one of the top Croatian linguists, regular professor of Croatian language at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Author of numerous books and articles on Croatian language (from grammars to sociolinguistic commentaries). In his 2006 interview in Croatian daily Slobodna Dalmacija, he states the following:

"Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku, i to treba jednom konačno jasno reći. Ako se netko s tim ne slaže, neka izloži argumente."

Translation:

"On standardological level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and even Motenegrin are different varieties, but of the same language. Hence, on a purely linguistic level, i.e. on the genetic level, on the typological level, we're dealing with one language, and that fact finally has to be clearly stated. If someone doesn't agree with that, let him state his arguments."

A report on the symposium held in Graz in April 2007, on the differences on modern standard B/C/S by Egon Fekete:

"Sredinom aprila održan je prvi od tri predviđena međunarodna simpozijuma, na kojem se raspravljalo o opštim uslovima diferencijacije B/H/S i o fonetskim, fonološkim ortoepskim i ortografskim razlikama u prepoznavanju B/H/S govora. Svoja istraživanja su izlagali lingvisti iz Graca, Minhena, Zagreba, Berlina, Osla, Splita, Sofije, Sarajeva, Ljubljane, Pule, kao i lingvisti iz Beograda i Novog Sada.

Saopštenja su obuhvatala pitanja iz sociolingvističkog i lingvopolitičkog statusa standardnih jezika na novoštokavskoj osnovici (I. Pranjković, Zagreb), probleme semantičke diferencijacije u tri entiteta (D. Šipka, Šandler), sociolingvističku situaciji u Crnoj Gori (S. Monesland, Oslo), planiranje statusa i korpusa u tri jezička standarda (J. Granić, Split), fonetsko-fonološke razlike kao teorijski problem (B. Tošović, Grac), fonetsko‑ortografske razlike između tri jezika (J. Silić, Zagreb), pravopisne i fonetske razlike među njima (I. Čodić, Sarajevo), a o tome su govorili i M. Okuka (Minhen), V. Ajsman (Grac) i drugi.

Srpski lingvisti bavili su se analizama vokalskog sistema (M. Marković – I. Bjelaković, N. Sad), pitanjima pravopisa (LJ. Popović, M. Dešić), akcenatskim sistemom (M. Dešić, E. Fekete i M. Tasić, Beograd), kao i drugim aktuelnim problemima u novijoj jezičkoj praksi.

Iako o ovoj inicijativi i programu Slavističkog centra u Gracu postoje u našim krugovima izvesne nedoumice i sumnje, valja istaći da razloga za to ipak nema. Pokazalo se da osnovna ideja simpozijuma nema tendenciju da se naučno potvrdi i inauguriše postojanje tri zasebna jezika. U tematskom segmentu simpozijuma bile su veoma ozbiljno, argumentovano i nepristrasno opisane i razmatrane razlikosti u savremenoj jezičkoj produkciji i praksi nastale pre i posle raspada jugoslovenske državne zajednice i jezičkog raskola. Dakle, nastojalo se da se objektivno, bez ikakvih političkih konotacija, opiše savremena jezička praksa i komunikacija u tri državna entiteta i ukaže na eventualne ili stvarne razlike među njima. Naprotiv, može se reći da su istraživanja i saopštenja na simpozijumu, uopšteno uzev, implicitno rezultirala zaključkom da bitnih, dakle sistemskih, razlika među posmatranim govornim entitetima zapravo nema."

Translation:

"During the Apri the first of the proposed three international symposiums was held, which discussed the general conditions of the B/C/S differentiation and ghd phonetic, phonological, orthoepic and orthographical differences in the recognition of B/C/S speeches. Research by the linguists from Graz, Munchen, Zagre, Berlin, Oslo, Split, Sofia, Sarejevo, Ljubljana, Pula was displayed, as well as those from Belgrade and Novi Sad.

Presentations dealt with the questions of sociolinguistic and linguopolitical status of the standard languages with the Neoštokavian basis (I. Pranjković, Zagreb), problems of semantic differentiation into three entities (D. Šipka, Šandler), sociolinguistic situation in Montenegro (S. Monesland, Oslo), planning of the status and corpus in all three standards (J. Granić, Split), phonetic-phonological differences as a theoretical issue (B. Tošović, Grac), phonetic-orthographical differences among the three languages (J. Silić, Zagreb), orthographical and phonetic differences among them (I. Čodić, Sarejevo), and all of this was also discussed by M. Okuka (Munchen); V. Eisman (Graz) and others.

Serbian lingusts dealt with the analyzes of the vocalic system (M. Marković – I. Bjelaković, N. Sad), the questions of orthography (LJ. Popović, M. Dešić), accentual system (M. Dešić, E. Fekete i M. Tasić, Beograd), and other current problems in the newer linguistic practice.

Although this initiative and the program of the Slavic Center in Graz has stirred certain doubts and prejudices in our linguistic circles, one has to clearly say that there are no real reasons for them. It was demonstrated that the basic idea of symposium does not have the tendency to scientifically confirm and inaugurates the existence of three separate languages. In the thematic segment of the symposium, the differences in the current linguistic production and practice before and after the disintegration of the Yugoslav state union were seriously, argumentatively and impartially described and analyzed. In other words, it was attempted to objectively, without any political connotations, to describe the modern linguistic practice and the communication in three state entities, and to point the possible or real difference among them. As it turns out, it can be said that the research and the statements on the symposium, in general, implicitly resulted with the conclusion that essential, e.e. systematic, differences between the observed speech entities are in fact none."

The opinion of a Serbian linguists, professor Ranko Bugarski, from the faculty of philology in Belgrade. Professor Bugarski served as the vice-president of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), president of the European Linguistic Society (SLE), also being a member of the European Academy of Arts and Sciences. This interview was given shortly after professor Bugarski held a series of six lectures on the American universities, on the fate of Serbo-Croatian language:

"Srpskohrvatski jezik živi

'Ovu činjenicu priznaje i međunarodna struka, koja nastavlja baratati pojmom i imenom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Srpskohrvatski je danas jedan lingvistički jezik u obliku tri politička jezika.'

Profesor Filološkog fakulteta u Beogradu Ranko Bugarski rekao je da 'jezici ne nastaju političkim dekretom' i da 'u lingvističko komunikacijskoj razini srpskohrvatski jezik živi'.

'Iako je službeno ukinut i ne postoji u političko simboličkom smislu, srpskohrvatski jezik nastavlja da živi', tvrdi profesor Bugarski u intervjuu za novosadski Dnevnik.

'Govornici tri nacionalna jezika (srpskog, hrvatskog i bošnjačkog) na koje je on rastočen sporazumijevaju se glatko kao i ranije, a neki ga psihološki i dalje doživljavaju kao svoj maternji jezik', istaknuo je Bugarski.

'Ovu činjenicu priznaje i međunarodna srtuka, koja nastavlja baratati pojmom i imenom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Najkraće, srpskohrvatski je danas jedan lingvistički jezik u obliku tri politička jezika', zaključio je profesor Bugarski.

On je rekao da je srpskohrvatski jezik u procesu raspada Jugoslavije 'zloupotrebljen za raspaljivanje ratne histerije', da bi konačno i sam 'postao žrtva rata', tijekom kojeg je, kako je rekao, 'sahranjen u zajedničkoj grobnici s jugoslavenskom federacijom'.

'U regiji još uvijek živi, inače nadvladana, romantičarsko nacionalistička ideja s kraja 18. stoljeća o svetom trojstvu jezika, nacije i države, po kojoj svaki narod mora imati jezik koji pripada samo njemu', rekao je on."

"Serbo-Croatian language is still alive

'This fact is today internationally recognized by the linguistic profession, which continues to use the concept and term of Serbo-Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian is today one linguistic language in the form of three political languages.'

The professor of the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy told us that 'languages are not created by a political decree', and that 'in the linguistic-communication level, the Serbo-Croatian language is still live'.

'Although it has officially be terminated and it does not exist in the political-symbolical sense, the Serbo-Croatian language continues to live on', claims the professor Bugarski in an interview for Novi Sad's Dnevnik.

'The speakers of the three national languages (Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) to which it disintegrated communicate among themselves as painlessly as they did before, and some of them still conceive it psychologically as their mother tongue', emphasizes Bugarski.

'This fact is acknowledged by the internatual linguistic circles, which still continue to use the term and the name of Serbo-Croatia language. Essentially, it can be said that the Serbo-Croatian is today one linguistic language in three political language forms', concludes professor Bugarski.

He further notices that the Serbo-Croatian languge, during the period of disintegration of Yugoslavia, was 'misused to enkindle the war hyteria', that in the end it would 'itself would become a victim of the war', during which, he says, 'it was burried in the common tomb with the Yugoslav federation'.

'The region has still very much alive, otherwise obsoleted, romanticist-nationalist idea of the 18th cenutry, on the Holy Trinity of the language, nationa and state, according to which every nation must have its own exclusive language', states Bugarski."


text: ρωδάκινο

title: ρωδάκινο


text:
σύκο

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) fig (fruit)

title: σύκο


text:
κορόμηλο

Noun

 * 1) cherry plum

title: κορόμηλο


text:
öntet

Noun

 * 1) dressing, icing

Verb

 * : to have somebody pour something or to have something poured

title: öntet


text:
γκρέιπφρουτ

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) grapefruit

title: γκρέιπφρουτ


text: γκρέιπ-φρουτ

title: γκρέιπ-φρουτ


text: γκρέϊπφρουτ

title: γκρέϊπφρουτ


text:
سكان

Etymology 1
From, from , from. Compare also 🇨🇬 and.

Noun

 * 1) rudder, helm, steering wheel of a ship
 * 2)  steering wheel of a car

Etymology 2
from

Noun

 * 1) One who sells or makes knives; cutler

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) steering wheel

title: سكان


text:
fázový

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  phase

title: fázový


text:
س ك ن

Root

 * 1) Related to living, residing, inhabiting

Derived terms

 * Verbs and verbal derivatives

 * Nouns and adjectives

title: س ك ن


text:
sunyi

Etymology
From the obsolete verb.

Adjective

 * 1) deceitfully malevolent

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) deserted, empty (of a room of space)
 * 2) quiet, silent
 * 3) alone of a person

Etymology
From, from , from , from.

Adjective

 * 1) quiet, silent
 * 2)  deserted, empty
 * 3)  free
 * 1)  free
 * 1)  free

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) deserted, empty (of a room of space)
 * 2) quiet, silent

title: sunyi


text:
tervszerű

Adjective

 * 1) systematic carried out using a planned, ordered procedure

title: tervszerű


text:
Talk:engross

shouldn't there be a link here to grosserie (Fr) and grocery (since a grocer is one who engrosses--buys at wholesale)
 * Good point – thanks! I’ve added a link to, as those other terms are related to gross, not to engross.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:engross


text: きんじ

title: きんじ


text:
きむぢ

Etymology
Compound of 🇰🇲.

Pronoun

 * 1)  second person personal pronoun: you
 * "ja"
 * "ja"

- 「いかに、美しき、君の御ざれ心なり. きむぢは、おなじ年なれど、いふかひなく、はかなかめるかし」

 * 1) * c. late 11th-early 12th century Ōkagami (book 6)
 * [...]もとめさせ給ひしに、なにがしぬしの蔵人にていますかりし時うけたまはりて、「わかき物どもは、えみしらじ. きむぢもとめよ」とのたまひしかば[...]

title: きむぢ


text:
korlát

Etymology
hu

Noun

 * 1) railing to keep people away or to assist walking
 * 2)  barrier, limit
 * 3)  bound
 * 4)  parallel bars

title: korlát


text:
hullámhossz

Noun

 * 1)  wavelength
 * 2)  wavelength a person’s attitude and way of thinking as compared to another person’s

title: hullámhossz


text: apocromatica

title: apocromatica


text: apocromatici

title: apocromatici


text: apocromatiche

title: apocromatiche


text: apocromatismi

title: apocromatismi


text:
pantografi

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) pantograph drawing aid

title: pantografi


text:
látószög

Noun

 * 1) angle of view, view angle

title: látószög


text:
tompaszög

Noun

 * 1)  obtuse angle

title: tompaszög


text:
hegyesszög

Noun

 * 1)  acute angle an angle measuring less than ninety degrees

title: hegyesszög


text:
homorúszög

Noun

 * 1)  reflex angle

title: homorúszög


text:
teljesszög

Noun

 * 1)  full angle, round angle, complete angle, perigon an angle of 360 degrees

title: teljesszög


text:
belső szög

Noun

 * 1)  interior angle, internal angle the inner angle between two sides of a polygon

Declension

 * For the noun, see.
 * The adjective remains unchanged.

title: belső szög


text:
külső szög

Noun

 * 1)  exterior angle

Declension

 * For the noun, see.
 * The adjective remains unchanged.

title: külső szög


text:
középponti szög

Noun

 * 1)  central angle an angle positioned with its vertex at the center of a circle

Declension

 * For the noun, see.
 * The adjective remains unchanged.

title: középponti szög


text:
pótszög

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1)  complementary angle a pair of adjacent angles that sum to a right angle

title: pótszög


text:
mellékszög

Noun

 * 1)  supplementary angle

title: mellékszög


text:
térszög

Noun

 * 1)  solid angle

title: térszög


text: naats

title: naats


text:
Talk:Adolf

Can we state "it is not used"? I would say "rarely used" or "usage has declined". Is it banned or what? Take a look at wolfram alpha, it shows clearly that it did not stop with WW II. Qorilla 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, I changed it into "rare". Your data is about Adolph, though. The f version is still less common, but a handful of little Adolfs can be found. --Makaokalani 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Category
This article belongs in Category:en:Nazism; it is mainly remembered as the name of, and is hence taboo.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Adolf


text:
utang na loob

Etymology
lit. 'owed will; inner debt'.

Noun

 * 1)  sense of gratitude; debt of gratitude

Interjection

 * 1) please!; God forbid!
 * 2) for crying out loud!
 * 1) for crying out loud!
 * 1) for crying out loud!

title: utang na loob


text:
kermanekka

Noun

 * 1) creamer jug for holding cream

title: kermanekka


text:
kermakko

Noun

 * 1) creamer jug for holding cream.

title: kermakko


text:
labor of love

Noun

 * 1)  A task performed voluntarily without expectation of reimbursement; an altruistic work or undertaking.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:, 用爱发电
 * Danish:
 * Finnish:
 * German:
 * Swedish: kärleksverk

title: labor of love


text:
Hallmarkish

Etymology
From Hallmark Cards, the greeting card company.

Adjective

 * 1)  Expressing sentiment in a way that is oversweet and insincere; schmaltzy.

title: Hallmarkish


text:
Hallmarky

Etymology
From Hallmark Cards, the greeting card company,.

Adjective

 * 1)  Hallmarkish.

title: Hallmarky


text:
User:John Cross/sandbox

- -  -

title: User:John Cross/sandbox


text:
thaumatin

Noun

 * 1) A virtually calorie-free protein sweetener and flavour modifier.

Translations

 * Finnish: taumatiini

title: thaumatin


text: thaumatins

title: thaumatins


text: sorbitans

title: sorbitans


text:
electrofishing

Noun

 * 1) a kind of fishing that uses electricity to stun the fish before they are caught, often used in scientific surveys so that the fish can be studied and returned to the water alive

title: electrofishing


text:
gum karaya

Noun

 * 1) Karaya gum.

title: gum karaya


text: gingivae

title: gingivae


text:
gingivectomy

Noun

 * 1)  A periodontal surgical procedure to remove gum tissue.

Translations

 * Inuktitut: ᐃᒃᑭᖅ ᐃᓇᓐᖓᖅᑕᖅ ᑭᒍᑎᒨᖓᔪᖅ
 * Italian: gengivectomia
 * Tagalog: alisgilagid

title: gingivectomy


text: gingivectomies

title: gingivectomies


text:
periodontally

Adverb

 * 1) In a periodontal way.

title: periodontally


text:
autenticitet

Noun

 * 1) authenticity

Etymology
, cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, from, used in Swedish since 1836.

Noun

 * 1) authenticity
 * sigillet är ett af kännetecknen på en akts autenticitet
 * the seal is one of the signs of a document's authenticity

title: autenticitet


text: autenticiteten

title: autenticiteten


text:
ապագայ

Etymology
From. Must have been modelled on an word post-classically. Compare.

Noun

 * 1) future

Adjective

 * 1) that is to come, future, posterior

title: ապագայ


text:
Crowleyan

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to Aleister Crowley (1875-1947), English occultist and writer, or to his works or beliefs.

Noun

 * 1) A follower of Aleister Crowley's philosophies.

title: Crowleyan


text:
counterproductively

Adverb

 * 1) In a counterproductive way.

title: counterproductively


text:
counterproductiveness

Noun

 * 1) The state or condition of being counterproductive.

title: counterproductiveness


text:
Bakewell tart

Etymology
After, a small market town in Derbyshire, England.

Noun

 * 1) A tart consisting of a shortcrust pastry shell, spread with jam and covered with a sponge-like filling enriched with frangipane.
 * 2) * "One of the most famous of tarts is the Bakewell tart, made from a flan of sweet paste, with jam spread over the inside base and frangipane piped or spread over, or done as a lattice."
 * 3) * "Still served in local tearooms is the famous Bakewell Tart, which was supposedly created by accident"
 * 4) * "They ordered soda scones and sandwiches, Victoria sponge cake and cling peaches, choux pastries and flapjacks, Bakewell tart and trifle with extra cream."

title: Bakewell tart


text:
hebephile

Noun

 * 1) A person who exhibits hebephilia.
 * 2) * 1989 Intervention Strategies for Sexual Abuse page 94 (and also page 97 of Tough Customers: Counseling Unwilling Clients)
 * The hebephile sees the female adolescent as having adult development but vulnerability. There may also be a sense of safety from rejection because the hebephile may have had actual or perceived poor sexual performance with adult partners. The ephebophile is even more likely to reflect the emphasis on youth in society; in this case, the gay culture's emphasis on youthful appearance.
 * The hebephile sees the female adolescent as having adult development but vulnerability. There may also be a sense of safety from rejection because the hebephile may have had actual or perceived poor sexual performance with adult partners. The ephebophile is even more likely to reflect the emphasis on youth in society; in this case, the gay culture's emphasis on youthful appearance.

title: hebephile


text: hebephiles

title: hebephiles


text: Category:Italian terms prefixed with stereo-


text:
heeltap

Noun

 * 1) A piece or wedge that raises the heel of a shoe.
 * 2)  A small amount of (especially alcoholic) drink remaining at the bottom of a glass.

Translations

 * Irish: preabán sáile

Verb

 * 1)  To add a piece of leather to the heel of (a shoe, boot, etc.).

title: heeltap


text: heeltaps

title: heeltaps


text: Category:el:Pathology

title: Category:el:Pathology


text: Category:fy:Linguistics

title: Category:fy:Linguistics


text: Bakewell tarts

title: Bakewell tarts


text: Category:fy:Language

title: Category:fy:Language


text: Category:fy:Communication

title: Category:fy:Communication


text:
hypoellipse

Noun

 * 1)  A superellipse with an exponent (shape parameter) smaller than that of the ellipse, i.e. less than two.

title: hypoellipse


text: hypoellipses

title: hypoellipses


text: hypodermoclyses

title: hypodermoclyses


text:
unrevised

Adjective

 * 1) Not revised; unmodified.

title: unrevised


text: Category:it:Optics

title: Category:it:Optics


text: Category:it:Light

title: Category:it:Light


text: Category:it:Energy

title: Category:it:Energy


text:
hyposmia

Etymology
From +, equivalent to.

Noun

 * 1)  A reduced ability] to [[smell and to detect odors.

Translations

 * Catalan: hipoòsmia
 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin: 嗅覺減退
 * Galician: hiposmia
 * German: Hyposmie
 * Indonesian: hiposmia
 * Italian:
 * Luxembourgish: Hyposmie
 * Polish:
 * Portuguese: hiposmia
 * Russian:
 * Spanish: hiposmia
 * Ukrainian: гіпоосмія, гіпосмія, мікросмія
 * Vietnamese: mất khứu giác, giảm khả năng ngửi

title: hyposmia


text:
kyphoscoliosis

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  Abnormal curvature of the spine in both coronal and sagittal planes; i.e. backward and lateral (sideways) spinal curvature.

Translations

 * Portuguese: cifoescoliose

title: kyphoscoliosis


text: kyphoscolioses

title: kyphoscolioses


text:
User:Ivan Štambuk/Serbo-Croatian/Practical concerns

ICTY
Since almost all of the charged defendants are some kind of extreme nationalists, it is reasonable to assume that the language issue would sooner or later come up, as Serbs would be given documents or translations that were provided by Bosnian/Croatian translators/interpreters, with markedly "Western Serbo-Croatian" lexis and constructions, or vice versa.

Some of the defendants, like Vojislav Šešelj acted as if they don't "understand" these "foreign words", that differ themselves in some phonologically trivial details (that are very regular and intuitively grasped by all the SC speakers) from the words they are otherwise familiar with.

This was responded to Šešelj by one of the judges:

"You made some objections to the use of some words. For example, the word opći: opposed to opšti:, the word točka: as opposed to tačka: and others. I went into some details, and in my conclusion there's not the slightest doubt that this is the language you understand. We have the common roots in the Herzegovinian Serbo-Croatian language, and what we are discussing here are not dialects, not even dialects. These are variants of one and the same language. And the basic document, I am convinced that it's not only in a language you understand but also the language you are using because whenever those words mentioned by you, for example, the word for 'defence', which would be in the Croatian variant obrana: and in the Serb version odbrana: you can read the Serbian version in the indictment".

Šešelj was, of course, playing dumb. He is very smart (he was the youngest Ph.D. in Yugoslavia), wrote dozens of books, and is extremely literate. When interrogating some of the Croatian witnesses, he even mocked some of the newly-proclaimed "Croatian" words that they used (e.g. sustav, izvješće - as opposed to "Serbian" sistem, izvještaj. Actually the last one is quite bizarre case, because according to Croatian purists izvještaj is markedly "Serbianism", and the "proper Croatian" equivalent being izvješće, when in fact izvještaj is a native Slavic derivation from the verb izv(ij)estiti, and izvješće is a borrowing from Russian..)

Šešelj also made a formal appeal, which was discarded with the following explanation, which pretty much embodies the essence of the this whole "different languages" farse:

"The defendant incorrectly claims that '...the hybrid language BCS presents an obstacle to the accused prof. dr. Vojislav Šešelj, the written material in this language containing a large amount of words that are not from Serbian language, and the practical translation takes a lot of time'.[1] Before that, the defendant states that he has trouble understanding some of the words that are used by the interpreters/translators of ICTY, which is simply untrue. The defendant grew up and studied in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. During this formative years, the defendant lived, worked and studied in Ijekavian, one of the two linguistic variants of Serbo-Croatian language. The other variant of Serbo-Croatian language is Ekavian and it is prevalently used in Serbia where the defendant spent most of his adulthood. The differences in writing and the speech of Ijekavian and Ekavian are so minor, that everyone who speaks either of the linguistic variants can easily utilize the other one. Thus, the claim of the defendant that during this trial he is unable to understand written or oral arguments due to the use of certain words in Ijekavian, when written or oral translation from English to BCS is done, is absurd.

Also, insisting of the defendant on the existence of Serbian as a separate language has no firm grounding. In the linguistic sense, Serbo-Croatian cannot be split to two or more languages. Although the nationalists such as the defendant can insist on the use of 'Serbian' or 'Croatian' or 'Bosnian' language, these are merely different tags that are given to the same member of the South Slavic branch of Indo-European family of languages. The differences in spelling, syntax and pronunciation are not significant enough that 'Serbian', 'Croatian' and 'Bosnian' could be treated as separate languages. Every theoretical autonomy that exists between these so-called 'different languages' stems from ideological and political values which are, from the linguistic perspective, completely worthless. The most eminent linguist in the former Yugoslavia [Ranko Bugarski] wrote in 1994 the following:

The Serbo-Croatian language is not an exclusive property of Serbs and Croats. It is spoken in the 4 of our republics by the 4 of our nations, and by almost all of our declared Yugoslavs /.../ It would be absurd to separate special language for every single national identity at the area of former Yugoslavia[2].

In the end, as regards to the translation to 'Serbian language', the concern the defendant expressed on the possible loss of 'precious time', him being 'forced' to 'translate' the 'words of BCS' to 'Serbian language', is especially ridiculous, with the enormous amount of time (including the time that the defendant will need to prepare his own defense) which will be lost, as it is described further in the text, if the Council chooses to accept his request to have all the material handed on 'paper' and on 'Serbian language'."

Stake through the heart of Balkanic linguo-nationalism, no less.

Library of Congress
On September 1st 2008 the code hrv has officially started to be used as bibliographical/library tag, as a replacement for the former scr (as an abbreviation for "Serbo-Croatian Roman"). Similarly, srp replaced the scc (="Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic" - the only division was thus by script, not by language of the text). That event has been celebrated by some of the Croatian national(istic) institutions as a date of "international recognition of the Croatian language" (Međunarodno priznanje hrvatskoga jezika - just google that term). Some pathetic pamphlets and booklets have been published, and the National and University Library even organized a contest on the "best literary and art work on the topic of international recognition of Croatian language".

One would think that, if the so-called "Croatian language" is sooo different from Bosnian/Serbian/Montenegrin, it wouldn't have needed the formal recognition in the first place, and would simply follow its own development path, this time "free of the Communist claws", that allegedly "suppressed" it.

As it turns out, Croatian nationalist psyche conceives these type of - in practical linguistic terms, completely worthless - acts, as something of extreme importance for the emancipation of the so-called "Croatian language", because it becomes another uber-argument on the "difference". Now they can say "Croatian language has the separate ISO codes from Serbian, both as an individual language and as a bibliographical unit!".

And what are the dirty details behind this absurd linguocidal act? The initiative itself became fruitful only after 18 years of lobbying, and the results came only after the Serbian side too supported the separation.

And, the official ISO 639-2/RA Change Notice, sent from Norway on the June 28th, has this sentence at the end (translated from Serbo-Croatian, I couldn't google the original):

"The data that have already been coded with scr and scc tags are still valid, and the deprecated tags will not be assigned a different value in the future."

As my favorite translator Mate Maras notes, "in practical terms this means that tens of thousands of Croatian books in the Library of Congress will forever carry the tag scc, and the users themselves will have to discover whether there is "Croatian language" hiding underneath".

Maras also describes some of his experiences, in his efforts to lobby for separate tag for "Croatian language". He thus writes:

"I raised the issue of that question in a conversation I had in the Library of Congress at the beginning of April 2000. I was invited and welcomed by the assistant of the director of the Office for catalog politics and support, who officially announced and explained the newly-introduced changes; with him was Milicent Wewerka, higher specialist for catalog politics. They've coldly told me that they see no problem at all with having the Croatian literature cataloged under scr, because that code stands for the title Croatian. When I started to raise my reasons against that symbol of drowning of Croatian language in an artificial construct that was artificially presented as some kind of supralanguage, I was told 'You can be happy that that construct has officially been obsoleted and unlisted from the list of tags. But we must also say to you that many libraries of the American universities, unfortunately, will not follow our example and the recommendation and the separation of languages. Due to human inertia and ignorance, they consider it a redundant type of work and an unnecessary expense.'"

A kind of Pyrrhic victory for the "international recognition of Croatian language", wouldn't you say.

Serbian-English dictionary 1920
Recently I've discovered on the Internet Archive a Serbian-English and English-Serbian pocket dictionary from 1920 (thus out of copyright), written by an obscure British author Louis Cahen.

Here is an excerpt from its short introduction:

"Of these three languages which form the southern division of the Slavonic languages, Slovene and Serbo-Croatian are very similar both in vocabulary and structure; on the other hand, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, though they contain a large number of words common to both languages, are very dissimilar in grammar.

The Serbo-Croatian people was divided between the two, that part of it which lay more to the east and nearer Constantinople, i.e. roughly speaking the kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro and the eastern parts of Bosnia and Hercegovina, became incorporated in the Eastern Orthodox Church at Constantinople, while that part of it which lay more to the west and nearer Rome, that is, roughly speaking, the western parts of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia, fell under the influence of the Western or Roman Church. It thus happened that the Serbo-Croatian people, which was ethnically and linguistically one, became, from the point of view of religion and civilization, divided into two halves, which came to be differentiated and known under their old tribal names of Serbs or Serbians (Srbi) and Croats or Croatians (Hrvati).

It thus, further, has come about that their language, now generally known as Serbo-Croatian, which is essentially one and the same, is written in both alphabets, Latin and Cyrillic, while each of the other of the Slavonic languages is only written either in Latin or Cyrillic characters.

The Serbo-Croatian language, written in Latin characters as taught in the schools where Roman Catholics predominate, i.e. in the western part cf the Serbo-Croatian territory, is called Croatian written in Cyrillic characters as taught in the eastern Orthodox half of the Serbo-Croatian territory it is called Serbian. That is to say, the same language can be written in either alphabet."

And this was in 1920! Waaay before the Ustaše and Četnik, before the alleged "oppression" of "Croatian language" by the Communist regime (which seized power only in 1945). Croatian was simply synonymous with "Western variety of same Serbo-Croatian language written in Latin script".

And what is so curious about this "Serbian dictionary"? The fact that it contains dozens of words that are today perceives as exclusively Croatian! When on the other hand, they have quite a lot of historical usage by the Serbian writers...

For example, you can find here native Slavic month names, which are today only used by Croatian standard (sečanj, veljača, ožujak...even srpanj mr. Ullmann!), where Bosnian and Serbian use Latin-derived names Januar, Februar, Mart...

You can also find many modern exclusive standard Croatian words such as tvornica: (B/S: fabrika:), tajnik: (B/S: sekretar:), sudac: (B/S: sudija:), tisuća: (B/S hiljada:), tisak: (B/S: štampa:), knjižnica: (B/S: biblioteka:), ravnatelj: (B/S: direktor:), skrb: B/S: briga:), bačva: (B/S: bure:), cjenik: (B/S: cenovnik:), mirovina: (B/S: penzija:), kakvoća: (B/S: kvalitet:), kat: (B/S: sprat:), brzojav: (B/S: telegram:), sveučilište: (B/S: univerzitet:) and the list goes on and on.... Lots of the words listed are also sometimes used in modern standard Serbian, but have strong Croatia "pedigre" (blagdan, zemljopis, činovnik, svezak, pristojba..)

Also some in morphology. For example, today the Croatian vastly prefers the suffix -telj to form agentive nouns, as opposed to -lac that is perceived as "more Serbian". The suffix -lac is still used in thousands of words, and is not going away anytime soon (in some it's even impossible to replace it). However, this dictionary lists a number of words with -telj (often as the only ones): pobeditelj, poštovatelj, branitelj, poslužitelj, prevoditelj, razoritelj, pustošitelj, rušitelj, slušatelj, spasitelj, stvoritelj, hranitelj, tužitelj etc. - most of these have only the -lac variety in modern standard Serbian.

It appears that the "split" to the 2 literary idioms has ended up significantly impoverishing both of them...

The practical implication of this paradoxical situation is of immense importance for Wiktionary. For once, we do not focus only on modern standard idiom only, although we give it the premier treatment (in the translation tables e.g.), but also on the literary language 20 years ago, 200 years ago, whenever it was recorded. We cannot "forbid" that e.g. the word tisuća: is listed as Serbian. In fact, on its citation page I've given the attestation of the 14th century usage of that word, in of the most important medieval Serbian literary monuments.. The fact that 99% of Serbs today would use the word hiljada: instead bears no significance to us, other than the necessity of mentioning that fact in the ==Usage notes==.

I can imagine that some proud Croats would look in sheer horror if words such as mirovina, knjižnica or skrb were marked as ==Serbian==. They would prob. be even more horrified if they saw "Serbianisms" such as uslov, kašika, bezbjednost or ćutanje marked as ==Croatian==, with the CFI-passing citations of the most important Croatian writers.. (try googling some of these lexemes on Croatian Wikisource, also in inflected forms!)

What is the point? As this dictionary illustrates, it's pointless to view the separation of B/C/S through their modern-defined standards, if we have CFI in mind. 99% of those "Serbianisms" were used by top Croatian writers such as Krleža and Matoš, and a great deal of modern-day "Croatisms" were used in the historical period by Serbian writers (same is valid for Bosnian and Montenegrin too, we're just now focusing on the two "big guys"). With our rather "thin" CFI (only 3 citations by different writers), the multiplication of content would be much, much more pervasive than any modern-day analysis of the "differences" between the literary idioms would suggest.

The only solutions that comes to mind is to treat them all collectively, providing citations and comments such as "this word was used by Serbian writers until the 1950s, then it became markedly of "Western provenience", and after the 1990s its usage significantly dropped..".


text: Category:es:Oncology

title: Category:es:Oncology


text: Category:et:Oncology

title: Category:et:Oncology


text: Category:Interlingua articles

title: Category:Interlingua articles


text: Category:hy:Applied sciences

title: Category:hy:Applied sciences


text: Category:tl:Food and drink

title: Category:tl:Food and drink


text: Category:is:Applied sciences

title: Category:is:Applied sciences


text:
ապագա

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) future

Adjective

 * 1) future

title: ապագա


text:
պարագայ

Etymology
From. . Compare.

Noun

 * 1) circumstance; particular, detail
 * 2) turn, revolution

Adjective

 * 1) circumjacent

title: պարագայ


text:
عشاء

Noun

 * 1) dinner, supper

Noun

 * 1) evening; nightfall
 * : isha, evening prayer
 * 1)  maghrib and isha
 * 1)  maghrib and isha

title: عشاء


text:
roll-on

Etymology
Deverbal from.

Adjective

 * 1)  Applied by means of a ball that can be rotated to pick up liquid from the inner reservoir.

Noun

 * 1)  A type of corset which is rolled on to the body.
 * 2) A cosmetic product (especially a deodorant) applied by means of a ball at the head of a container, which rolls the product on to the skin etc.
 * 1) A cosmetic product (especially a deodorant) applied by means of a ball at the head of a container, which rolls the product on to the skin etc.
 * 1) A cosmetic product (especially a deodorant) applied by means of a ball at the head of a container, which rolls the product on to the skin etc.

Translations

 * Bulgarian: ластичен колан

 * Danish:
 * Finnish: roll-on
 * German:
 * Swedish: roll-on

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) roll-on cosmetic product

Etymology
. Attested since 1965.

Usage notes
Uninflected.

title: roll-on


text: roll-ons

title: roll-ons


text:
two bob

Noun

 * 1)  Two shillings; a florin.
 * 2)  A 20-cent coin.
 * 3)  A trivially small value.

Usage notes
The use of two bob for a 20-cent coin derives from the equivalence of two shillings for 20 cents for the purpose of conversion during decimalisation (in 1966); since then, the term has slowly dropped out of usage and it is seldom used today.

title: two bob


text:
electrofisher

Noun

 * 1) The device used to produce an electric current in electrofishing.

title: electrofisher


text: electrofishers

title: electrofishers


text:
left-hand path

Proper noun

 * 1)  A path through life that values the advancement and preservation of the self and the pursuit of terrestrial goals, rather than the worship of intangible deities.

title: left-hand path


text:
right-hand path

Proper noun

 * 1)  A path through life that focuses on deities or divinity rather than the terrestrial.

title: right-hand path


text:
User:Aytrus

 * Aytrus

title: User:Aytrus


text:
պարագա

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) circumstance; case
 * 2)  accessories
 * 3)  adverbial modifier
 * 1)  accessories
 * 2)  adverbial modifier

title: պարագա


text:
shrewlike

Adjective

 * 1) Resembling or characteristic of a shrew mouselike mammal.
 * 2) Resembling or characteristic of a shrew ill-tempered woman; shrewish.

title: shrewlike


text: unsquareable

title: unsquareable


text:
nonprivate

Adjective

 * 1) Not private; public.

title: nonprivate


text:
cartlike

Adjective

 * 1) Resembling or characteristic of a cart wheeled vehicle.

title: cartlike


text: chiffres arabes

title: chiffres arabes


text:
alphabet phonétique international

Noun

 * 1)  International Phonetic Alphabet; IPA

title: alphabet phonétique international


text:
դուզնաքեայ

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) little, very little, moderate, small, light, thin

title: դուզնաքեայ


text:
get-out clause

Noun

 * 1)  An escape clause.

title: get-out clause


text:
unplantable

Adjective

 * 1) Not plantable; on which nothing can be effectively planted.

title: unplantable


text:
èsser

Etymology
From, from , from.

Verb

 * 1) to be

Noun

 * 1) being a living creature

title: èsser


text: urbanisms

title: urbanisms


text: modnika

title: modnika


text: modniki

title: modniki


text: modnikov

title: modnikov


text: modniku

title: modniku


text: modnikoma

title: modnikoma


text: modnikom

title: modnikom


text: modnike

title: modnike


text:
thonglike

Adjective

 * 1) Resembling a thong; straplike.

title: thonglike


text: modnikih

title: modnikih


text: copilotes

title: copilotes


text:
thinglike

Etymology
. Compare,.

Adjective

 * 1)  Resembling a thing; having the properties associated with a physical object; objectlike.

title: thinglike


text: govora

title: govora


text: govorov

title: govorov


text: govoru

title: govoru


text: govoroma

title: govoroma


text: govorom

title: govorom


text: govore

title: govore


text: govorih

title: govorih


text: pridevnika

title: pridevnika


text: pridevniki

title: pridevniki


text: pridevnikov

title: pridevnikov


text: pridevniku

title: pridevniku


text: pridevnikoma

title: pridevnikoma


text: pridevnikom

title: pridevnikom


text: pridevnike

title: pridevnike


text: pridevnikih

title: pridevnikih


text: račukalnika

title: račukalnika


text: račukalniki

title: račukalniki


text: račukalnikov

title: račukalnikov


text: račukalniku

title: račukalniku


text: račukalnikoma

title: račukalnikoma


text: automaticizzando

title: automaticizzando


text: račukalnikom

title: račukalnikom


text: automaticizzante

title: automaticizzante


text:
automaticizzare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to automate

title: automaticizzare


text: račukalnike

title: račukalnike


text:
automaticizzato

Adjective

 * 1) automated

title: automaticizzato


text: automaticizzati

title: automaticizzati


text: račukalnikih

title: račukalnikih


text: automaticizzata

title: automaticizzata


text: automaticizzo

title: automaticizzo


text: automaticizzi

title: automaticizzi


text: automaticizza

title: automaticizza


text: automaticizziamo

title: automaticizziamo


text: automaticizzate

title: automaticizzate


text: automaticizzano

title: automaticizzano


text: automaticizzavo

title: automaticizzavo


text: automaticizzavi

title: automaticizzavi


text: automaticizzava

title: automaticizzava


text: automaticizzavamo

title: automaticizzavamo


text: automaticizzavate

title: automaticizzavate


text: automaticizzavano

title: automaticizzavano


text: automaticizzai

title: automaticizzai


text: automaticizzasti

title: automaticizzasti


text: automaticizzò

title: automaticizzò


text: automaticizzammo

title: automaticizzammo


text: automaticizzaste

title: automaticizzaste


text: automaticizzarono

title: automaticizzarono


text: automaticizzerò

title: automaticizzerò


text: automaticizzerai

title: automaticizzerai


text: automaticizzerà

title: automaticizzerà


text:
automaticizzazione

Noun

 * 1) automation

title: automaticizzazione


text: automaticizzeremo

title: automaticizzeremo


text: automaticizzerete

title: automaticizzerete


text: automaticizzeranno

title: automaticizzeranno


text: automaticizzerei

title: automaticizzerei


text: automaticizzeresti

title: automaticizzeresti


text: automaticizzerebbe

title: automaticizzerebbe


text: automaticizzeremmo

title: automaticizzeremmo


text: automaticizzereste

title: automaticizzereste


text: automaticizzerebbero

title: automaticizzerebbero


text: automaticizziate

title: automaticizziate


text: automaticizzino

title: automaticizzino


text: automaticizzassi

title: automaticizzassi


text: automaticizzasse

title: automaticizzasse


text: automaticizzassimo

title: automaticizzassimo


text: automaticizzassero

title: automaticizzassero


text: formigas

title: formigas


text: Category:Occitan pronouns

title: Category:Occitan pronouns


text: Category:Occitan personal pronouns

title: Category:Occitan personal pronouns


text:
automato

Noun

 * 1) automaton

title: automato


text:
fetologia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) foetology / fetology

title: fetologia


text:
táálu

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Noun

 * 1) house

title: táálu


text:
ficologia

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) phycology
 * 2) algology

Noun

 * 1) phycology study of algae

title: ficologia


text: castèls

title: castèls


text:
mantèl

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1)  coat

title: mantèl


text: mantèls

title: mantèls


text:
زبان صوری

Noun

 * 1) formal language

authors: Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais

title: زبان صوری


text:
արաստոյ

Etymology
The origin is. Martirosyan proposes derivation from, , which may be identified with ,.

Adjective

 * 1) hard, solid of rocks

title: արաստոյ


text:
browar

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) brewery

Noun

 * 1)  brew; beer

title: browar