Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

User avatar
Woods
Posts:950
Joined:2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender:male
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)
Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Woods » 2021-07-27, 21:34

Before I ask my question, can I call it just Serbian or does it have to be Serbo-Croatian - what is the most historically correct name for that language and is it politically accepted?

And now my question: which of the official norms of the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian language is most etymologically correct (conservative in regards to where things come from in native words and grammar) and respectful of the spellings of foreign words (i.e. keeping them more like they are in the language they are borrowed from)?

The first thing that shocked me when I picked a magazine in one of these languages (the text was in Latin characters) was how they were respelling foreign proper nouns written in the same alphabet (I am improvising here, but let's say George Bush would have looked something like Džordž Buš). Not all of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin would do stuff like that, would they?

Do people and authorities in any of these countries have any issues with documents written using one of the other three standards?

And did Serbian indeed start using Cyrillics as they had decided or is the Latin script still prevalent?

Even as a native Bulgarian (i.e. person whose native language is written in Cyrillics), I would still think that given the linguistic situation in the region it would make a lot more sense to ditch the Cyrillic script completely and align the standard with that of neighbouring countries that speak the same language (wouldn't it?)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby linguoboy » 2021-07-28, 0:50

Woods wrote:Before I ask my question, can I call it just Serbian or does it have to be Serbo-Croatian - what is the most historically correct name for that language and is it politically accepted?

Why do you care about "historical correctness"? "BCS" for "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian" is a commonly-used shorthand nowadays.

Woods wrote:And now my question: which of the official norms of the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian language is most etymologically correct (conservative in regards to where things come from in native words and grammar) and respectful of the spellings of foreign words (i.e. keeping them more like they are in the language they are borrowed from)?

The first thing that shocked me when I picked a magazine in one of these languages (the text was in Latin characters) was how they were respelling foreign proper nouns written in the same alphabet (I am improvising here, but let's say George Bush would have looked something like Džordž Buš). Not all of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin would do stuff like that, would they?

This is part of the Serbian convention for writing BCS in Latin script; it is not part of the Croatian convention. I can't say for sure what the official Bosnian convention is but I suspect it agrees with the Croatian and not the Serbian.

Woods wrote:Do people and authorities in any of these countries have any issues with documents written using one of the other three standards?

What sort of issues?

Woods wrote:And did Serbian indeed start using Cyrillics

Just "Cyrllic".

Woods wrote:I would still think that given the linguistic situation in the region it would make a lot more sense to ditch the Cyrillic script completely and align the standard with that of neighbouring countries that speak the same language (wouldn't it?)

It depends what your goal is. Remember, language serves more purposes than just intercommunication. It can also be a symbol of ethnic and cultural identity, and if that aspect is particularly important to you then you may be more interested in emphasising distinctions than minimising them. Look at the example of India, where the principle that every distinct language (and even distinct standards of the same language, e.g. Hindi and Urdu) should have a distinct script is very pervasive.

I think the concept of the narcissism of small differences is relevant here.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

Linguaphile
Posts:5358
Joined:2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Linguaphile » 2021-07-28, 5:14

Woods wrote:The first thing that shocked me when I picked a magazine in one of these languages (the text was in Latin characters) was how they were respelling foreign proper nouns written in the same alphabet (I am improvising here, but let's say George Bush would have looked something like Džordž Buš).

Several languages with Latin-based alphabets do this: Albanian Xhorxh Bush, Azerbaijani Corc Buş, Latvian Džordžs Bušs, Lithuanian Džordžas Bušas, Samogitian Džordžos Bošos, Turkmen Jorj Buş, Veps Džordž Buš.
In the case of Serbian the use of the spelling Džordž Buš is a result of the relationship between the two alphabets. The two alphabets are interchangable, and use the same spelling, with a one-to-one correspondence for each letter. (Some Cyrillic letters have to be written with Latin digraphs when transliterated but this is done in a consistent way, with each Cyrillic letter always transliterated to the same Latin letter or digraph. The Latin digraphs are considered separate letters in the Latin alphabet.)
So, George Bush is written as Џорџ Буш in Serbian Cyrillic, and the corresponding Latin spelling is Džordž Buš.
A google search seems to show that it is also sometimes written as Георге Бусх in Serbian Cyrillic and George Bush in Serbian Latin.
Either way, the principle of the two alphabets being interchangeable is important, so if the two alphabets are used side by side (for example) you wouldn't see the spellings Џорџ Буш and George Bush used together. It should be Џорџ Буш = Džordž Buš or if someone prefers to use the English spelling then it will be Георге Бусх = George Bush.
Woods wrote:And did Serbian indeed start using Cyrillics as they had decided or is the Latin script still prevalent?

Yes, it's my understanding that both are used extensively. The government prefers Cyrillic and has mandated that government correspondence use Cyrillic. It is also used frequently in more "traditional" contexts, including things like advertising that want to give a more "traditional" feel. The Latin alphabet is used more frequently in contexts that tourists might encounter (such as signs on the street), things that want to give a more "modern" feel and in texting, from what I understand.
I believe all Serbian speakers, certainly nearly all Serbian speakers, can read both alphabets and use them interchangeably. For example a library would have a mix of books written in both alphabets (and when finding a book there the person looking for books wouldn't care or even think about which alphabet the book was written in, since they can read either one just the same.) The one-to-one correspondence facilitates this. No one has to learn two spellings, just two ways to write each letter.
As another example, I have a book written in Serbian that is a collection of articles. Some articles are written in Cyrillic, others in Latin. The articles were written by different authors and as far as I can tell each is printed in the alphabet that its author preferred to use. (No article goes back and forth between alphabets, however - that's simply not done. Pick one, stick with it in that particular text, much like choosing a font.)
Woods wrote:Even as a native Bulgarian (i.e. person whose native language is written in Cyrillics), I would still think that given the linguistic situation in the region it would make a lot more sense to ditch the Cyrillic script completely and align the standard with that of neighbouring countries that speak the same language (wouldn't it?)

I think the things I mentioned above make that unnecessary. Serbians can read both, so the alphabet issue with neighboring languages doesn't create any issues for them. And text that tourists or others from those neighboring countries are likely to encounter are usually written in either Latin or both, so it doesn't create many issues for them either. I guess the main place it would become an issue would be if a person from a neighboring country has to interact with government documents, which would be written in Cyrillic. I don't know if Latin could be used alongside it in that situation. But governments expecting people to interact with the government in the language of that country is nothing new.

User avatar
Saim
Posts:5740
Joined:2011-01-22, 5:44
Location:Brisbane
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Saim » 2021-07-29, 4:11

Linguaphile wrote:A google search seems to show that it is also sometimes written as Георге Бусх in Serbian Cyrillic and George Bush in Serbian Latin.


I'm almost certain this is an error of machine translation. Бусх especially looks quite bizarre, as that suggests the pronunciation /busx/.

Everything else in your post is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. :)

Woods wrote:it would make a lot more sense to ditch the Cyrillic script completely and align the standard with that of neighbouring countries that speak the same language (wouldn't it?)


Why would Serbs need to ditch Cyrillic to align the two standards? The two standards were already convergent under both Yugoslavias, without any subsequent abandonment of Cyrillic. And notably the Bosnian and Montenegrin standards are still essentially identical to the "western variant" of the Serbian standard, anyway. As far as I can tell the only major attempt to differentiate Montenegrin from Serbian is by adopting the "hyper-ijekavian" letters ś and ź for the sounds [ɕ] and [ʑ], but this hasn't really caught on that much and the sounds themselves are only present in the eastern half of Montenegro, and for Bosnian the only thing is preferring previously dialectal h-preservation or insertion in a handful of words like la(h)ko, me(h)ko and ka(h)va, but which again still isn't universal in written Bosnian.

Linguaphile
Posts:5358
Joined:2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Linguaphile » 2021-07-29, 6:17

Saim wrote:
Linguaphile wrote:A google search seems to show that it is also sometimes written as Георге Бусх in Serbian Cyrillic and George Bush in Serbian Latin.


I'm almost certain this is an error of machine translation. Бусх especially looks quite bizarre, as that suggests the pronunciation /busx/.

Thanks! I wondered about that... a lot of the sites that used "Георге Бусх" start with the language code (sr. in this case) which I think usually means they are machine-translated. But I don't know enough Serbian to be able to tell if they "sound" machine-translated or not so I couldn't tell for sure.

Saim wrote:Everything else in your post is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. :)

Yay! :partyhat:

User avatar
Woods
Posts:950
Joined:2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender:male
Country:FIFinland (Suomi)

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Woods » 2021-08-05, 18:02

I opened the Croatian Wikipedia to check what they do with personal names originally written in the Latin alphabet and they don't seem to destroy them like Serbians do:

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

I would have to read a little bit further to see what they do with loanwords, but another thing I notice is that they have listed the bibliography of that politician only with the English titles of the books, which probably means the attitude is that since it's English, people know it and therefore there is no need to translate - which is cool!

And talking of Wikipedia, has there ever been a discussion of merging the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian versions or is it out of the question?

Saim, what is your opinion of what is the most historically-accurate way to call this language ?

I think it's a real shame that they didn't teach us history from the aspect of what happened in all Balkan states but solely about how Bulgaria viewed the events. But what is first, objectively - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia; where did this language originate and did any country model its language after another one or did each of them always do their own thing and somehow the languages happened to be the same even though nobody admitted it? I bet Serbia was most influential during Yugoslav times.

User avatar
Saim
Posts:5740
Joined:2011-01-22, 5:44
Location:Brisbane
Country:DEGermany (Deutschland)

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Saim » 2021-08-05, 22:24

Woods wrote:And talking of Wikipedia, has there ever been a discussion of merging the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian versions or is it out of the question?


Yes. There is already a Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, but obviously many speakers refuse to participate there. The project for a Montenegrin Wikipedia was refused on the grounds that it would not be sufficiently different from the other four language versions (sr, hr, bs, sh), and I remember the decision including the argument that there were only four versions in the first place because people requested them before Wikipedia had any clear guidelines on what sort of projects would be eligible (so if they applied now only Serbo-Croatian would be eligible for a project).

Saim, what is your opinion of what is the most historically-accurate way to call this language ?


Personally I'm partial to just calling it Shtokavian (and treating Kaikavian, Chakavian and Torlak as separate languages), but I don't think that's a particularly realistic solution at present. I tend to call it Serbian by default but then use the term "Serbo-Croatian" if it's necessary to specify that it's the same language. In Serbian itself we either call it srpski [Serbian] or naš jezik [our language] or naš [our] -- srpskohrvatski has fallen out of use almost entirely. I also occasionally say be-ce-ha-es (BCHS - I've also heard be-ce-ka-es based on the German version of the initialism) when talking to Serbo-Croatian speakers who have studied linguistics or philology, but this is still a bit of a stuffy academic term that is unlikely to be broadly adopted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "historically accurate". Do you mean the first term used to refer to the language? I'd have to check to be sure, but as far as I can recall the earliest Shtokavian literature from Croatia uses terms like "slovinski/slovanski" (Slavic; i.e. not Venetian, Istriot, Italian/Tuscan or Dalmatian) and "dubrovački" (Dubrovnik language). I'm not sure what language term Serbian epic poetry used, if any.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think the term "hrvatski" (Croatian) for different South Slavic varieties appeared quite early but it didn't win out as essentially the only term used among Croats until the 20th Century.

But what is first, objectively - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia


All three states were created as federal units of socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. Croatia was the first of the three to secede from Yugoslavia, so as a modern nation-state you could say Croatia came first, I guess. In terms of their current borders, they all trace them back to 1945 as far as I'm aware.

where did this language originate and did any country model its language after another one or did each of them always do their own thing and somehow the languages happened to be the same even though nobody admitted it? I bet Serbia was most influential during Yugoslav times.


The Croatian tradition was consciously and deliberately moved towards the Serbian one due to pan-Slavism and the fact that vernacular Shtokavian was already widely used in Croatia (but not in the more developed western part). As far as I understand there was already a sort of Croatian koiné before the Vienna and Novi Sad language agreements, and it wasn't as clearly Shtokavian as the current standard.

This is for the standard/literary varieties. As for the natural dialects, Shtokavian spread westward and northward as a response to Ottoman incursions in the 1600s and 1700s. This is why the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect specifically shows non-contiguous distribution throughout the central area of the former Yugoslavia, and this dialect of Shtokavian forms the basis of all four standards. (The two largest cities in Serbia, Novi Sad and Belgrade, traditionally speak Vojvodinian-Shumadian, which is also quite close to Eastern Herzegovinian, and has ended up influencing the current form of the Serbian prestige dialect).
Last edited by Saim on 2021-08-06, 9:37, edited 5 times in total.

Linguaphile
Posts:5358
Joined:2016-09-17, 5:06

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby Linguaphile » 2021-08-05, 23:04

Woods wrote:And talking of Wikipedia, has there ever been a discussion of merging the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian versions or is it out of the question?

To add to Saim's post, there is even an article about the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia in the English Wikipedia.

Woods wrote:But what is first, objectively - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia; where did this language originate and did any country model its language after another one or did each of them always do their own thing and somehow the languages happened to be the same even though nobody admitted it?

All of the South Slavic languages of the region are part of a continuum, which means that varieties that are geographically close to each other (i.e. Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Serbian) have a lot of similarities and dialects that are geographically further apart (i.e. Slovenian and Bulgarian) have more differences.

This is a natural process that happens with a lot of languages and it's not a case of one particular variety being the "original" one because they usually continue to develop simultaneously, with the varieties that are closer to each other (geographically or through trade, cultural contacts, etc) developing in similar ways and the varieties that are further from each other developing more differences. I mean, that's oversimplifying it for a variety of reasons, but basically neither of your choices above is true: no country "modeled" its language after another but neither did each of them "always do their own thing" and somehow just happen to be similar to their neighbors. That's just not how languages develop. They interact, influence each other in both directions, and do their own thing.

I think the key here is that several points fairly close to each other along the continuum developed their own standard forms (for cultural and political reasons as well as linguistic ones) when for many other languages the points that developed standard forms were further apart. In many of your threads (not just this one) this is something that you focus on: those points where several languages fairly close to each other have developed their own separate standards. If you haven't already, I think you might be interested in these two articles on Wikipedia or interested in googling to find other resources on these topics: Dialect Continuum (it's relevant, I promise; it goes quite a bit beyond just defining what a dialect continuum is and goes into many of the examples that you have posted about in various threads: South Slavic languages, North Germanic languages, Saami languages, etc.) and Pluricentric Language.

User avatar
cHr0mChIk
Posts:441
Joined:2015-07-01, 11:46
Real Name:Ismail
Gender:male
Location:Serbia
Country:RSSerbia (Србија)

Re: Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Bosnian vs. Montenegrin?

Postby cHr0mChIk » 2021-09-09, 1:51

Maybe I am just thinking from my Serbian perspective, but it makes no sense to me to spell names in the way they're spelled in the original language. Serbian has it's own phonetic and orthographic system, and if you'd spell, for example "Michael Jackson" in Serbian, that would be read as "mitskhael yatskson" which makes 0 sense.
Speaks: English (en) Bosnian (bs) Serbian (sr) Romani (rom)

Learns: Arabic (ar) Urdu (ur) Pashto (ps)


Return to “Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (Bosanski/Hrvatski/Српски)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests