User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 3

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Georg Holzer

Are yufamiliar with this Dutch linguists who proposes that Slavic only developed in the 5th or so century AD ? Hxseek (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I even wrote a small article on him: Georg Holzer. He's an Austrian linguist, not Dutch, and according to him there were no dialectal differences in Proto-Slavic until the late 7th century: in approx. 600 CE, there was uniform Proto-Slavic spoken from Novgorod to Thessaloniki. He's a regular visitor at the conferences such as IWoBA. Not many of his papers are available online (some like this encyclopedic article, in German unfortunately, are really great). Last year he wrote this awesome little book Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache which has extremely detailed chronological overview of Proto-Slavic sound changes in sync with the current scholarship, and that is currently being translated to Croatian and will be published this summer/fall, and I'm really looking forward to reading it.. :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So by 600 CE, does he mean common Slavic prope ? Ie before 600 CE, there were numerous Balto-Slavic dialects and languages throughout E.E. ? Can you read german ?

Also, how closely is Slavic related to Thracian ? I have been thinking that they must have been related more closely than we might think given that so many inhabitants in dacia and northern Thrace adopted it as a lngua franca during this time ? Hxseek (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was still Common Slavic in 600 CE, and phase of proto-Slavic at that period is usually called "Early Proto-Slavic". There were pan-Slavic sound changes for a few more centuries, some of them however missing some peripheral dialects. What happened before the slavic expansion in 6th century is a big mystery..there certainly must have been some Balto-Slavic dialects there were suppressed by newly emerging Slavic koine, but except for some toponymics evidence, we don't know anything about them as they were unattested. Holzer analyzed all the toponyms and glosses of Slavic words (usually in Greek and Roman sources) in that period and came to conclusion that there was no discernible dialectal differentiation in such Early Proto-Slavic of the 600 CE. Some Greek toponyms of today are living fossils of such Early Proto-Slavic (e.g. Early Proto-Slavic Γαρδίκι, i.e. gardiki > Late Proto-Slavic gordьcъ, whence gradec by liquid metathesis and the vocalization of stron jer to /e/). For some sound changes, such as the first palatalization, that occurred in prehistorical times during the expansion of Slavic speech, we know that they operated on some Balto-Slavic dialects that were subsequently erase, as the archaic form of toponyms have been preserved in Baltic languages. See here for some more information.

I don't know anything about Thracian unfortunatelly.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So in the article here on Wiki, it states that proto-Slavic might have suceeded from proto-Balto-Slavic by ~ 1000BC, but proto-Slavic proper can be reconstructed back to 600BC. What is the difference ? ie when was proto-Slavic different enough so that it was not mutually understandable with speakers of western Baltic ? Hxseek (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not BC, but CE! 600 CE is where Proto-Slavic "proper" (Early Proto-Slavic) fits in. That late 6th century Early Proto-Slavic was still very similar to Baltic languages (you can in fact say it was just one of Balto-Slavic dialects). We can only speculate on the stuff such as mutual intelligibility, since the expansion of that Proto-Slavic erased pretty much everything of what probably was a large dialect continuum of Balto-Slavic. The only reason why Baltic languages of today are "alive" is due to their isolation (just look at the dates when first Lithuanian and Latvian documents were attested, or when the first historical record appear...it's all very blurry and highly-speculative before that).

I've mentioned several times earlier (not sure if it was to you though): you can even apply sound changes on many modern-day Lithuanian words and basically obtain Common Slavic (Late Proto-Slavic) words. The standard doctrine tells that Proto-Slavic changed more in the period of expansion (6th-9th century) than it had in 2000 years before that. This type of change in a certain period as opposed to long stagnation is not unusual, and is usually related to certain large-scale changes in population, impact of one dominant culture onto another, or any other kind of radical cultural shift. I've read that the same thing happened in Irish (in the historical period, i.e. documented).

The essence is that up until 1500-1000 BC there was a period of exclusive common development in Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, then one dialect separated and became ancestral of what we today call "Proto-Slavic", and later that dialect (in the historical period) expanded on some large area (circumstances of which are not completely clear, but it was surely a sudden expansion as there are no discernible dialectal differences in such newly-arisen Proto-Slavic). What happened in between to languages/dialects that are lost and never attested - we can only speculate. According to Baltic nationalist there were "Balts occupying Belarussia and Ukraine", according to others these were early Slavs... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, so up to 600 AD, proto-Slavic would have been rather mutually intelligible with some Baltic languages, and therfore would have been a mere 'dialect'. So, we can only speak of a Slavic people, in terms of a sufficiently coherent group of people who have a common language which is not intelligible to their neighbours, from after c. 6th century AD ?

The book Language contacts in prehistory is interesting (Pg 45-66). It points to a very heterogeneous vocabulary in Common Slavic such as Germanisms, Celticisms (limited), Iranicisms and a dozen or so Alticisms (via Huns, Avars and Bulgars). It continues that, whatever the original relationship b/w Slavic and Baltic in the more distant past, they formed a linguistic continuum over a wide area of central and north eastern Europe (Baltic to northern Ukraine, from from Vistula to Don) into the Common Era, one which was eventually replaced by the expansion of Slavic. they highlight that Slavic was a relatively peripheral dialect within this continuum. In addition, they talk of 'discrepent dorsals' (irregular phonological borrowings) absent in other satem languages (ie Iranic) which could be ascribed to more earlier borrowings or intrusions from centum languages (such as Germanic, 'Venetho-Illyrian' or 'west -Indo-European -> does this last one imply as yet undifferentiated Celto-Germano-Italo-Illyrian? ). They suggests that these irregularities could also be the result of correspondences with pre-Satem substrata (does this mean before differentiation of IE into satem, ie earlier, less developed IE dialects) and ante-I-E substrata (does this mean pre- I- E ? )

As for toponymic evidence (esp hydronyms), do you think that this is an accurate way of searching for earliest 'homelands'? According to hydronyms, the oldest ones are found in Volhynia and Podolia, whilst botanical toponyms point to Polesie (the beech, yew, etc arguement). In linguistic reconstruction and typology (p 216), the author suggests that the apparent archaic hydronyms along the Dneiper area could be due to an expansion of proto-Slavs into the area from a more easterly (ie Galician homeland), where although river names are 'Old European',was the original homeland, whilst in the Dnieper region, the Slavs felt they had to rename the rivers which previously bore more foreign Iranic or Thraco-Cimmerian names. Hxseek (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you by "Baltic languages" mean "other Balto-Slavic dialects neigbouring the Slavic area", then there probably was a large degree of intelligibility. However, important thing to note is that Baltic languages (those that were historically attested) are quite divergent, so you get e.g. Old Prussian which seems to be an outliner against Lithuanian & Latvian to the same extent that it's an outliner to Proto-Slavic. There are some features OP shares only with Slavic but not with L&L, as well as some that are exclusive to Eastern Baltic and Proto-Slavic. When Proto-Slavic started to rapidly change in the centuries to come, stating with the first palatalization (5th century CE, according to some even a few centuries earlier), intelligibility certainly suddenly decreased. That was also probably the period when Slavic ethno-linguistic self-consciousness arose (the meaning of "Slav" (sloven-) is probably "the one that speaks our tongue" (slovo = "word")).

I'm not sure what exactly is the question in the second paragraph. Satem sound change was a very early innovation that happened across large territory in a period when one can only speak of "Late Proto-Indo-European dialect continuum", and not individual language groups as "Balto-Slavic", "Germanic" etc. Borrowings in Proto-Slavic are often a matter of great exaggeration and speculation with little underlying proof. Germanicisms in Proto-Slavic are well-known (mostly from Gothic, some from OHG, a few possibly Proto-Germanic, none is Proto-Balto-Slavic), Celticisms are but a few (4-5) and mostly disputed, Altaisms (10-15, usually confined to some regional area) are all from Bulgar and Avar and deal with social organization (stuff like ban) or some upper-cultural concepts or goods which were unknown to Slavs but were introduced by nomadic traders. Certain Iranianisms are surprisingly few, but the usual doctrine is that Iranian tribes exerted an influence in religious sphere (words for "heaven", "god" etc.) I'm not sure what "irregularities" does the author of that book have in mind, that should be supportive of some substratum theory.. The Ivanov-Toporov model you mention of Slavic being peripheral Balto-Slavic dialect is what's laid out here (you also helped there).

My opinion on hydronymy evidence is that it's quite conclusive, as hydronyms are very slowly changed, and the great concentration of Slavic hydronyms (in the middle Dnieper area as concluded by Trubačev) necessarily points to a longer period of habitation there. I've read that Croatian tribes kept the names of the rivers that were longer than approx. 50km, and to shorter ones regularly gave newer names. Dunno for the rest of Slavdom.. The names of Dnieper and Dniester are very non-Slavic (they're Iranian), but they were never changed, even though they were in the center of the Slavic expansion. So that argument sounds a bit shaky to me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way a new idea I;ve come accross is that, like with the Avar khaganate, proto-Slavic was also used by the Rus/Verangian traders/ warriors as koine, hence explaining its spread through the Baltic and western Russia. Although some scholars such as Sedov postulated a 6th century spread of Slavic to those areas, some more recent proposals push it back to the 8th or 9th century, fitting in with the rise of the Rus Hxseek (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: if Baltic, and to a lesser extent Slavic, are incompletely Satemized, does this mean that they were slightly peripheral to the origin point of Satem innovation ? When did proto-B-S differentiate from proto-IE ? Hxseek (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some exceptions to Satemization in Balto-Slavic, but these have various explanations (some like Kortlandt and Matasović even deduce rules for regular depalatalizations of PIE palatovelars which changed them into regular velars before Satemization occurred). Satemization was overwhelmingly regular, and the 10-20 disputed examples are IMHO hardly enough to speak of "partial Satemization". They might be regular exceptions, or prehistorical post-Satemization borrowings from Centum langauges, or some Balto-Slavic-specific PIE variants with velars instead of palatovelars (there were provably such variants, even with dual reflexes in a single branch). So it remains inconclusive at best..

Late PIE dialect continuum is usually dated sometimes at 4000 BCE. Between that period, and the 1500-1000 BCE common exclusive Balto-Slavic sound changes occurred (some appear to be "shared" with some other groups, but once you take relative chronology into account you realize that all of them are exclusive common isoglosses). This whole period in-between is Proto-Balto-Slavic in various stages, but linguist usually reconstruct the last phase only. After that, each Balto-Slavic group experienced its own innovations (minor sound changes, mostly in lexis), and then some centuries after CE Slavic group distinguished itself, consciousness of "those who speak like ourself" arose (slovo "word" + ethnicon-forming suffix -en-inъ = slov-en-inъ "Slav"), interactions with Germanic, Turkic, Iranian.. element occurred and the rest is history ^_^ (which you know much better then I).

From the linguistic perspective, by far the most important thing to notice is the dissolution of this slavic koine (Common Slavic, or Late Proto-Slavic): 1) all living Slavic languages/dialects, without any exceptions, are derivable from it 2) it appears to have disintegrated "in place", i.e. there are lots of what we today perceive as some kind of "dialect clusters" (in SC we say nar(j)ečje) - e.g. Kajkavian and Čakavian Croatian - which did not pass through some intermediate phase, i.e. if you apply comparative method on their individual speeches you get this Common Slavic and not some "Proto-Čakavian" or "Proto-Kajkavian", all of which brings us to one conclusion 3) the spread of Slavic koine happened very fast, before it could get any chance to seriously dissolve itself. Once it covered larger territory, it was easy for certain isoglosses to remain geographically confined. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. So Innovations which led to divergence of pr-BS from p-IE began c. 3000 BC, with the late common p-BS period falling c. 1500- 1000BC. After this proto-Slavic began to have its own peculiar changes, but was still rather conservative and might have been intelligible to other balto-Slavic dialects. From c. 5th century CE, it began a rapid expansion etc, coinciding with the first evidences of any significant dialectical divergence within proto-Slavic and increasing borrowings. ?

I think we need to add a little overview like this in the proto-Slavic (& proto-BS) article. What I was getting at earlier with partial satemization, etc, is that rather than a single dispersal of proto-IEs and then a dialectical divergence, Andersen proposes that (as far as Slavic and Baltic go) there were successive, small scale waves of migration of IEs from the steppe to the forests, each one more linguistically advanced than the next. So they imposed their newer, more advanced language on earlier groups (these being pre-IEs, then early proto-IndoEuropeans, western (centum) IEs, and those with partial satemized IE dialects - satemization was an innovation which obviously did not reach the, by then, more peripheral Celtic, Germanic, Greek langauges). This would account for some of the differences in Baltic and Slavic, ie the pre-existing differences in earlier populations, as some terms were kept which were 'kindred and adapted to local conditions'. Hxseek (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All correct.

Anderson's thesis o small-step migrations each introducing some kind of innovations is interesting, and it would be great if it could be complemented by some archaeological evidence, or supported by more researchers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the postulated Venetic language, 'Old European' hydonymy and their possible role in shedding light on the Venethi Hxseek (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't have a clue. I've read on the other hand on the ethnonym/toponym Venet(hi) itself a lot, with the conclusion that it designated various peoples in various periods by various speakers. According to Matasović, Venetic theory of Slavs is pure BS, based on dubious archeological evidence and even more dubious linguistic evidence. I can translate to you what he says on that if you're interested. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whenever you get a chance. So "Veneti" itself is not a Slavic ethonym ?Hxseek (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not native Slavic, but probably is of PIE origin. There are about 2 pages of discussion to translate, I'll drop it to your talkpage when I finish it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ivan. I was thinking whether we could add some of this info to the proto-Slavic (and Balto-Slavic articles). Just a bit more info as to the development process:

According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the currently favoured model accounting the spread of IE languages, the Urhiemat of the proto-Indo-European people is to be found in the Pontic steppe, represented archaeologically by the 5th century BC Sredny Stog culture (Kortlandt). From here, the various daughter dialects dispersed radially in several waves between 4400 BC and 3000 BC. The first wave yielded the ‘peripheral’ IE languages – Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo-Celtic, whilst Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic remained more central. Some developments such as the assibilation of the palatovelars (the satem innovation) only reached the central-most IE languages (Balto-Slavic, Thracian and Indo-Aryan). According to Kortlandt, the IEs who remained after the migrations became speakers of Balto-Slavic. Innovations exclusive to Balto-Slavic commenced by 3000 BC and continued to ~ 1000 BC. During this time, Balto-Slavic evolved from a late-proto –IE dialect to a distinct linguistic branch. Balto-Slavic dialects retained many archaic IE features, confirming a development central to the original proto-IE homeland.(Mallory, pg 292-3)

Specifically, Kortlandt links the earliest stages of Balto-Slavic development with the Middle Dnieper Culture. The MDC is located between the Corded Ware Culture and the Yammna culture. This geographic location would be one where the satem Balto-Slavic language was exposed to centum influences (Kortlandt). It then expanded along the forest zone, replacing earlier centum dialects, such as pre-proto-Germanic, evidenced by the presence of a few prehistoric centum borrowings. {Nichols p 245}} Template:Language contacts p 72. BS and Germanic have similarities which have been attributed to both a genetic relationship (eg Bojtar) and continuous adjacency (Nichols 249).

From c. 1500- 1000 BC, a series of increasingly unique innovations began a process of crystallization of proto-Slavic as a distinct dialect of Balto-Slavic This occurred along the southern periphery of the proto-Balto-Slavic continuum. The most archaic Slavic hydronyms are found between the middle Dnieper, Pripet and upper Dniester rivers. Indeed, Trubachev argues that this location fostered contacts between speakers of proto-Slavic with the cultural innovations which emanated from central Europe and the steppe (Language contacts, pg 49, 50). Although language groups cannot be straightforwardly equated with archaeological cultures, the proto-Slavic linguistic development corresponds temporally and geographically with the Kamarov-Chernoles continuum of cultures (Novotna, Blazek) in the forest steppe. During the first few centuries AD, loan words entering proto-Slavic evidence an increasing of cultural contacts with surrounding peoples. Most appear to be of Germanic origin- connected to the movement of east Germanic groups into the Vistula basin, and subsequnelty to the middle Dnieper basin (associated with the appearance of the Przeworsk and Chernyakov cultures, respectively). A fewer Iranian loan words appear to relate to terms of cultural provenance- which could have stemmed from the late Iranic period (Gimbutas).

Yet Slavic remained conservative, and by the turn of the Common Era, the various Balto-Slavic dialects formed a dialectical continuum stretching from the Vistula to the Don and Oka basins, and from the Baltic and upper Volga to southern Russia and northern Ukraine (L.C. pg 49). Exactly when Slavs emerged as a culturally coherent group remains a subject of debate (eg Curta – 6th century in the Danube, Baran – fifth century in the Chernyakov era, or during the Zarubinetshorizon 200 BC – 200 AD Migration in the Eurasian steppe), but it is likely that linguistic affinity played an important role in defining group identity for the Slavs. In fact, the ethonym “Slav” came to be used by Slavs to identify themselves as those who ‘speak who speak (the same language)’.

The earliest evidence of dialectical divergence within Slavic is dated to c. 400 AD. This corresponds with the beginning of Slavic historical expansion (Kortlandt) and perhaps the first separation of Slavic groups, by the arrival of Goths to the area of the probable Slavic homeland (Novotna, Blazek). The last shared innovations common to all modern Slavic languages are dated to the ninth century. The expansion of Slavic was very rapid, and it replaced and erased many other dialects and languages which existed in eastern and SE Europe in proto-historic times. What caused this rapid spread remains a topic of discussion. Traditional explanations focus on demographic expansions and migrations, whilst more processual theories attempt to modify the picture by introducing concepts such as ‘elite dominance’(Renfrew) and ‘language shifts’ (e.g. Nichols). Even before this, it was used a lingua franca amongst various barbarian ethnies which emerged in the Danubian and steppe regions of Europe after the fall of the Hun Empire (see B, B and E. Teodor). Cultural contacts between societal elites of politically independent communities might have led “language of one agricultural community spread(ing) to other agricultural societies” (Nichols p 240). This has been substantiated archaeologically, seen for example by the development of networks which spread of ‘Slavic fibulae’, artefacts representing social status and group identity (Curta). Dolukhanov suggests that military and political experience gained from their contact with the steppe nomads (History of Eurasian Steppe), as well as their advanced agricultural techniques enabled the Slavs to emerge as the dominant force in post-Hun era eastern Europe. That Slavic might have served as a Koine language within the Avar khanate .. . .

Whatever the case, the expansion of Slavic was not just a linguistic phenomenon, but the expansion of an ethnic identity (Nichols Pg 240).

Just a rough edit now, but I think it attempts to chronologically outline process of development without going into unneccesarily deep analysis. Hxseek (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks very good. Most relevant perspectives are mentioned, but none is given overdue emphasis. PS: I'm still working on the translation of that Venethi article.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll try to add it into the articles soon. I'm still just a little confused about terminology. If (as Kortlandt says) proto-Slavic (ie the reconstructed parent language which gave rise to modern Slavic languages) is dated to 600 AD - becuase he dates proto-Languages to the time of their dispersal, then what is it called during the period c. 1000 BC to 600 AD ? pre-proto-Slavic ? Hxseek (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pre-Proto-Slavic (or shorter simply pre-Slavic) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Please take a look at proto-Slavic at your leisure. I still need to expand the references fully. Hxseek (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that article Hxseek (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Meier-Brügger

This article you created has been tagged for speedy deletion by Andrewrp, apparently without notifying you. I'm sorry I cannot be of much help since I don't know anything about Meier-Brügger (except that he wrote the Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft...). Just wanted to tell you in case you don't know already. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed and asked for the clarification on the talpage, but someone removed the quick-deletion request at the meantime. Meier-Brügger wrote 2 major works so I think he should his article should be pretty safe now.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

In request to a request for informal mediation, I'm going to give you guys a hand-can you see the Hey Slavs talk page please-Talk:Hey,_Slavs#Informal_Mediation. You were mentioned as a minor party in the dispute. Thanks! Dotty••|^TALK 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has attacked you nor your personal integrity by quoting your professional aspirations (in computer technology). But your claims that in Hey, Slavs (the article) we should for the first time (in this Wikipedia) list Croatian, Bosnian, and also, Serbian language as variants of the Serbo-Croatian "language" is outrageous. It seems to me that Dotty was under the wrong impression that you are professionaly connected with general linguistics/dialectology led Dotty to the conclusion that it is best to leave your POV in the article.

Your position is by far controversial and harmful to the reader, SC-CS was a pollitical name, and not a language.

Imbris (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems of anyone getting the "wrong impression" of me being professionally connected with linguistics. It is flatters me, as it implies a degree of professionality I aspire to promote, despite the lack of formal training in that particular field (as if it matters something, the concept of university is utterly broken in the 21st century). It's much more amusing to write linguistics-related articles on en.wiki, that CS-related article on hr.wiki. I am now deeply convinced that contributing articles no hr.wiki on stuff such as lambda calculus, combinatory logic or NT kernel architecture was complete waste of time :p

That "outrageous" claim is still supported in shitload of modern and highly-authoritive English literature (and moreover I can dig you a plenty of pre-1990s quotes of newly-enlightened national-linguists like Brozović who speak of "varieties" of "common language", or imply it). I advise reading Wayles Browne's chapter on Serbo-Croatian in Comrie et al.'s big compilation The Slavonic languages (if you're in Zagreb, you can read it in NSK, there's a copy on the 3rd floor :p) to get a sober picture of a Western NPOV perspective on Balkan language business. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs

I know its a pain, and an annoying waste of everyone's time, but I really hope you'll help me conclude this matter. He's now insisting that Serbo-Croatian is not a language, and that its should not be listed "alongside" Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian as that is "POV". He wants it listed in the back, if even there, because you know, it was wiped from existence in 1991... x| --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well lets just see how an independent observer will comment on all these "different languages".. ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this canvassing, ha, Mr. DIREKTOR?

Mr. DIREKTOR is deliberately misleading you dear Mr. Štambuk. Namely I have commented that SC cannot be placed between bos and hrv. That is should not be listed as the language of only Hej Slaveni, that it should be listed as a Slavic language but not behind Serbian language, listed as the last among the "living" Slavic group. DIREKTOR combines the Hey, Slavs issue with the Serbo-Croatian article issue (where that macrolanguage should appear).

Imbris (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No not really, Imbris. He was already fully involved in the matter when I made this post. I'm obviously just discussing the issues with User:Ivan Štambuk. Feel free to report me if you feel any policy has been violated. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris I already commented somewhere that it's completely silly to have both "Croatian language" column and the "Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian" column with identical texts.. bs/hr/sr columns should be next to each other, since they're very closely related, grouped under the "Serbo-Croatian" or "Central South Slavic". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The DIREKTOR is the one who demands the Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian to have its own text in both Yugoslav anthem section and the South Slavic languages section. There is no way that bos, hrv, and also, srp will be grouped under the fabrication and serbo-unitarist name of Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. nor the Central South Slavic abbomination which (because of your intervention) leads to SC article. I agree that we do not need identical texts, and in Bosnian language they write živjeće, while in Croatian they write živjet će. So those two are not identical. -- Imbris (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why "there is no way" when they're essentially identical? Wikipedia is about consensus-building, and I suggest refraining from making that kind of absolute statements which obstruct reasonable argumentative discussion. I'll just ignore your seductive trolling and answer on the actual point of yours: the difference between živjet će and živjeće is merely orthographical, they're pronounced exactly the same (i.e. word-final '-t' is silent) by orthoephical norm. So it's kind of a virtual difference. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it, I don't know if you read this: "The historical failure of the Serbo-Croatian language warrants us to list it last,..." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic vowel system

Dear Ivan, Even before I visited pages such as /Slavic_liquid_metathesis_and_pleophony , /Proto-Slavic_borrowings , /Illič-Svityč%27s_law, I was convinced that one should write Proto-Slavic as e. g. *rankā, *suta, *būtī, *warnā and not with the anachronical transcription *rǫka, *sъto, *byti, *vorna as is still commonly done (or was commonly done until very recently ?). Do you have paper sources for this (new) usage or are you pioneering it ? I would be glad to know these sources if any. I hardly know of manuals or papers that use the "right" phonological spelling for reconstructed Common Slavic, but I am not a Slavist and I do not know enough of the literature. --Zxly (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that this are not some kind of "alternative notation" - they refer to different layers of Proto-Slavic. Comparative method can only give you the last phase of proto-language (and that's where you get the "usual" notation for Late Proto-Slavic aka Common Slavic). Early Proto-Slavic had quantitative oppositions (vowel lengths), closed-syllable clusters, diphtongs and other shit that disappeared in CS and yielded nasal sounds, jers, palatals etc. Most "standard" Slavic etymology handbooks are obsolete and just deal with Late Proto-Slavic as a starting point (as if it is something fallen out of the sky), which is trivially reconstructable from OCS and by comparative method. If you want to describe pre-Late-Proto-Slavic sound and accentual changes (which is much more fun, especially if you take Proto-Balto-Slavic as a stating point), you must start with Early Proto-Slavic phonemic inventory, and hence the reconstructions such as *rankā, *suta, *būtī, *warnā and others. This particular notation I used can be found in the Historical grammar of Croatian (standard language, i.e. Neoštokavian) written by Ranko Matasović [1]. Schenker's standard introductory book from 1996 The Dawn of Slavic (and also his chapter on Proto-Slavic in Comrie's monography The Slavonic languages, which is more-ore-less the same as an overview of Proto-Slavic in the textbook) uses something similar (with a bit more diacritics). The changes from Early to Late Proto-Slavic are already described in the article Proto-slavic#Syllabic_Synharmony, tho there are more stuff that's been missing. Transition between them is a matter of a trivial formula.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically mapping of EPSl. To LPSl. is:

• change of quantitative oppositions to qualitative ones: *a > *o, *ā> *a; *e > *e, *ē> *ě; *i > *ь, *ī > *i; *u > *ъ, *ū> *y. So e.g. the old quantiative opposition *a : *ā became new qualitative one: *o : *a.
• monophthongizations of the diphtongs: *ej > *i, *aj > *ě, *aw > *ō > *u (note that the symbol <j> is used for [j] and not <y> in order not to confuse it with the jery sound of Late Proto-Slavic)
• rise of nasal vowels from a sequence of a vowel followed by a nasal (*em/en/im/in > *ę, *am/an/um/un > *ǫ)
• The usual palatalizations (3 of them), and various simplifications in accordance with the principles of syllabic synharmony and the law of open syllables.. Also, the sound changes at the end of a word (the last syllable usually, known more commonly as Auslautgesetze) are extremely complex, and there is no consensus with regard to them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ivan for the references! I partly agree with the notion of Late Proto-Slavic vs. Early Proto-Slavic. However, Late PSl (*sъto, etc.) is very "late" - in fact it coincides with the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet (at least for the vowels, though not for *tj). And we cannot write *gordъ etc. as has commonly been done, but only either EPSl *gardu (before the dialectal differences) or LPSl *gorodъ/*gradъ etc. (as dialectal differences).But after all I must agree that the name "Late Proto Slavic" for the stage *sъto, *byti, *gorodъ/*gradъ etc. is no more objectionable than "Late PIE" for the stage following the loss of laryngeals (which involves even greater dialectal differences within that "Late PIE"). --Zxly (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to write *gordъ..that is the form that precedes both gorod and grad, and it has been attested in toponyms. Late PSl. had very minimal dialectal differences, for all we know (unlike Late PIE). Mostly in lexis in different regions, in the phonetic value of jat or the date of some isoglosses occuring. We are luck that the earliest OCS writings were in a very conservative dialect (lots of attestations being identical to Common Slavic proto-forms). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your logic?

Croatian	or	Serbian	Result (${\text{A}}\oplus {\text{B}}$)	Croatian	or	Serbian	Result (${\text{A}}+{\text{B}}$)
0	$\oplus$	0	0	0	$+$	0	0
0	$\oplus$	1	1	0	$+$	1	1
1	$\oplus$	0	1	1	$+$	0	1
1	$\oplus$	1	0	1	$+$	1	1

Imbris (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying, that speaking "Croatian" and "Serbian" (and "Bosnian" and "Montenegrin") is a mutually exclusive operation? ^_^ You don't need to draw truth tables for primitive Boolean operators for me , I've passed 8 uni-math courses you know (including discrete math) ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow... cool tables and math words I know nothing about. :o I'm so stupid for mathematics, its sad really. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, if you're referring to this - the translation of the phrase hrvatski ili srpski into English, it translates only as Serbo-Croatian, because it's a set phrase (or idiom, if you will) with strictly defined meaning (Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian), not decomposable into "sum of parts" sense. In English, OTOH, Croatian or Serbian is not a set phrase (tho it has some marginal usage; the term Serbo-Croatian is used several orders of magnitude more), and the only corresponding translations would be Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase hrvatski ili srpski can also be translated directly, that being the Croatian or Serbian. With the table I meant to clarify the duality of the term, which appears in the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1974) as a term of the tertiary order.

The Constitutional Parliament decided on the name of the language in the Article 138, § 1 and in the Article 293 of the said Constitution (not to mention that the provisions were exactly the same as in the Amendments to the previous Constitution, which had been passed in 1972).

Miro Kačić was the first (to my knowledge) to publicly speak about this issue. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, from the year 1972 did not acknowledge Serbo-Croatian, nor Croato-Serbian but the Croatian literary language which might be called Croatian or Serbian. The legislatures did not precise on whether this was inclusive or or exclusive or.

Nice to hear that you allow that the "language" can be called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.

As for the logic I thing A$\cdot$B is the most realist and prudent way of looking at the matter.

I presume you are in favour of A+B, while Mr. DIREKTOR, given the options A=Croatian, B=Serbian is only for A pierce B, as he declares only Slavic heritage.

What is the name the Italians use for Slavs? He would know!? This is why I believe that given the parameters A=Croatian, B=Serbian that there is no other logical operation to satisfy his POV (other than A pierce B, also transcribed A NOR B).

If Wayles Browne is a sincere admirer of Pavle Ivić then I get the picture.

Imbris (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that you cannot translate idiomatic phrases literally...The phrases hrvatski ili srpski and srpski ili hrvatski have specific meanings and usage, and unless those are matched by a literal translation into the foreign language, the most approximate term should be used, in this case Serbo-Croatian.

It's pointless what some constitutional clauses, AVNOJ meetings blah blah concluded, in what specific verbiage. Modern standard Serbian, Bosnian, Croatia and soon-to-be-codified Montenegrin are 100% mutually intelligible, have 99% identical grammar, and unless that starts to change, you're all barking up the wrong tree with this legislative irrelevanties..

Mr. Browne is certainly not an "admirer" of Ivić - he's a topmost scholar schooled at the bestest universities (MIT, Harvard..), and accusing him of political or ideological bias is silly. His association with Ivić is of different matter - Ivić was the person that welcomed USA Slavists that were sent to fieldwork by Stankiewicz, Golab et al. to Yugoslavia. Quoting from [2]:

Just as Europeans of earlier generations had been fascinated by the diversity of accentual problems (from both the descriptive and historical points of view), so now were many of their American colleagues drawn by the same magnet, and the rich variation of accentual systems among South Slavic dialects provided an irresistible gold mine of field data. Perhaps the most significant impetus to work with South Slavic dialects (and their accentual systems), however, was the charismatic presence of a single gifted, energetic and affable scholar, Pavle Ivić – the third of the three Slavist scholars responsible for the introduction of dialectology into the mainstream of U.S. Slavic linguistics. Although Ivić lived all his life in his native Yugoslavia [Serbia], he was fortunate enough to be able to make many visits to the West. He kept up a large network of scholarly contacts throughout the world, and made himself available to the many students who came from other countries to work with him. Three American Slavists (and one general linguist) went to Novi Sad to work with Ivić (Ronelle Alexander, Wayles Browne, Kenneth Naylor, and Sarah Grey Thomason), and three of the four wrote dissertations based on field work in Yugoslavia.

Ivić also functioned as an unofficial conduit for contacts between scholars from many different lands with interests in South Slavic dialectology, making sure that young Dutch, French, German, Russian and American South Slavists with common interests knew of each other’s work. Finally, Ivić’s long-term collaborative work with the American phonetician Ilse Lehiste resulted in many co-authored works. Although most of this work deals with prosodic phenomena in the standard language, the two also included dialectal material in their broad scope of investigation. All in all, the presence of Pavle Ivić has made an enormous contribution to Slavic linguistics in the U.S.

Late Ivić's Greater-Serbian apologetics (Slovo o srpskom jeziku, his alleged engagement in Bosnian war etc.) has abs. nothing do with his scholarly work, which is outstanding. It's ridiculous to even insinuate that Browne's work has something to do with some pro-Serbian stances. I mean, after all, look at DIREKTOR and me - we're Croats and hardly "pro-Serbian" - both are casually moreover harassed by GS nationalist, and deal with them in disputes regularly (being called OTOH "Croatian nationalists" ^_^). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indo-European Etymological Dictionary

Good work :-) I was going to rephrase the text myself, but couldn't produce anything useful yesterday evening. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ustaškim teorijama?daj saberi se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA-sh

Hi,

I haven't yet linked all the articles with SC transcriptions to this template, but once I do (in a couple days?), maybe you could review them? A lot have simple stress marks, and some don't mark accent at all. (Though I don't know how much you'd be able to do with personal names.) Also, I've been going through them pretty quickly, and may not have always made the best choice for the name of the language.

Sure, I was just starting to look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:IPA-sh and correcting some. Unlike some 90% of Croats, I'm a native speaker of Neoštokavian Ijekavian and can probably guess >95% of accents properly. Plus, there's this comprehensive online Croatian dictionary [3] with tens of thousands antroponyms and toponyms accented to verify against. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulcsú László

Svatko tko je studirao i poznaje lingvistiku u Hrvatskoj znade tko je Bulcsú László. On je jedan od najboljih hrvatskih lingvista koji govori 40-ak jezika. Reći ću ti samo jedno. Znaš li kakvo je njegovo znanje kada je ispravlja kineskoga lektora, koji je izorni govorinik, dakako. A tvoja je tvrdnja o tomu kako ne zna ni hrvatski glupa, jer taj čovjek i predobro znade hrvatski, samo što ima svoje zamisli o korijenskomu (pravo)pisanju.

P.S. Prvo nauči suvremeni standardni hrvatski, a onda kreni s korijenskim, jer ti, čini se, nijedan dobro ne ide. A bolje nemoj ni kretati s njim, zato što sigurno nemaš argumente za nepisanje po standardu. Kad ti lingvistika ili kroatistika budu bile struka, onda mi se javi. ;) --78.1.180.14 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ma on je moj q. Ako nemaš referencu za tu bizarnu tvrdnju, ne směš je postavljat. I poštedi me slaboumnih floskula tipa "nauči standardni hrvatski" - ja sam nativni govornik čiste ijekavske novoštokavštine i věrovatno je ispravnije pričam nego cěli zavod za serbokroatistiku na ffzg skupa (ne postoji "hrvatski jezik" - to je neoustaški fabrikat iz 90ih). "Standardni jezik", lol, pa oni maloumnici iz IHJJ još uvěk nisu uspěli napisati rěčnik "standardnog hrvatskog" (!) a gomiletina što propisanih što nepropisanih pravopisâ je uzajamno toliko konfliktna da je to za plakat. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)