User talk:Duja/Archive 1

; Archives
Jun '04 – Mar 2006; Mar – May 2006; May – Oct 2006; Oct – Nov 2006;	Nov – Dec 2006; Jan – Mar 2007; Mar – Jul 2007; Jul – Aug 2007; Sep – Nov 2007;

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 15:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

folk classes[edit]

What would be the difference between NNM and turbo folk? I can't say I've ever seen the two terms used in a different meaning or indeed in a different context... --Joy [shallot] 11:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMO NNM is a broad term for any folk music composed in late 20th century based on (mostly Bosnian, Serbian & Macedonian) indigenous music roots. "Turbo folk" is a narrower term, coming from 90s, describing the bastard of NNM with pop, rock & techno elements. For example, performers like Toma Zdravkovic, Saban Saulic and Haris Dzinovic belong to NNM, while "Turbo folk" would be reserved for creatures like Ceca, Jelena Karleusa or like. Sometimes it's difficult to draw the border though. Duja 15:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hm. The term NNM is a bit redundant in that meaning then, because in "folk music" doesn't have to imply that it is old and has no author. Although I agree that I wouldn't say those first three people are necessarily turbo folk. I suppose we could write an article about this :) Or integrate it into the Music of $country articles. --Joy [shallot] 11:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I recall the term "NNM" was around while I still was a boy (early 80s), while coinage of term "Turbo folk" is sometimes attributed to Rambo Amadeus (but I doubt it). I agree the term "NNM" is vague and redundant; further, it's obsolescent, as it sounds (for my ears at last) "politically correct" ("Folk" is typically used in Serbian media instead, and "Narodnjaci" or even "Ćirilica" colloquially). Actually, the missing link to NNM was there at Music of Serbia and Montenegro page which I edited relatively recently (but should be done better), but I was lazy to write the NNM article itself (not that I'm very qualified for that either). (Another problem is that NNM is related with both Serbia and Bosnia (at least), so it's a tad difficult to categorize it). Any suggestions for (re)categorization/(re)organization/wikification? Duja 12:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Molise Slavic[edit]

Zdravo! Vidim da te zanimaju jezici!Pročitaj moj članak Molise Slavic language!

Jos uvijek![edit]

Trudno mi je vjerovati da trce Hrvati i Srbi po Internetu koji pljuju po svojoj proslosti.

eh. Sto ja stranac mogu znati. --VKokielov 22:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Na sta se ovo konkretno odnosi? Nikola 07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I've noticed the way in which you have changed some links in Serbian cuisine, f.e. that to slava. If it wasn't a temporary confusion :) note that the first letter of link will be automatically capitalised, so it doesn't have to be in the link itself, and as it doesn't, you can just paste surplus letters at the end and it is less hassle to write and easier to read for other editors. For example, [[slava]]s has exactly the same effect as [[Slava|slavas]], with much less effort. Nikola 07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it was a temporary confusion :-). I knew about capitalisation but I didn't know about automatic extension of link to suffix, thanks. Duja 08:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs, history[edit]

The material you recently removed at Serbs: can it all be found elsewhere in Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup was mostly agreed on article's talk page. History material is moved to new History of Serbs, something is/should be moved to Origin of Serbs. Some stuff (Toponyms) is IMO just worthless and should be deleted, but it's commented out for the time. Duja 09:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I already put a note at Origin of Serbs that they might want to pick up part of what was deleted, but before deleting massive, potentially useful material it is usually best to copy out material to a temp page or to the relevant talk page. If it can be found only in the history of an article, it is very likely to be lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duja, please revert your history deletion on Serbs article. I know you meant only to shorten it, but half of the info isn't in History of Serbia. It fact, Serbs was the only page that contained that info. I precsely mean on Constantine Diogenes, Theophilos Erotikos and the theme of Serbia template. I am slowly including that info, but it will take time. I would like that the info stayed there in the meantime. Yours trully. HolyRomanEmperor 22:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montegro articles[edit]

Hi, I see you're in the category for those Wikipedians from Serbia & Montenegro. I'm trying to create a project whereby seperate articles for just Serbia OR Montenegro are written to an acceptable level, especially considering the possibility that 2006 may see the two nations seperate and become independent states. If that were to occur Wikipedia should have articles written to the standard of other national articles. It would be useful to have the input of Wikipedians living in the area. Please post any views here, not at my talk page. Thank You Grunners 18:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Sejo Sexon[edit]

Could you please vote here? --Dijxtra 11:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks intro[edit]

Do you think one of these days you could help me come up with a solid introduction to the Bosniaks page that would be acceptable by all? It should list just the basic facts and steer away from controversial matters. Asim Led 23:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Serbian scientist Ruđer Bošković deleted from List of Serbs; vandalism on Ivo Andrić; please revert (I have no more fast connection) HolyRomanEmperor 11:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian language[edit]

I don't know what are the original sources for articles about Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages, but I can tell you also that after my first edit in Wikipedia ever was erased the same day, it will be my last visit to Wikipedia.

I'm sorry to hear that, but things often work that way here (or even worse). As I mentioned in edit summary, the paragraph is OK, but it really belongs to Bosnian language; if you wish, you can ammend it there (I commented it out rather than erasing it so that it's readily available for copy/paste). Duja 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After your remark that the added section is generally OK but it should be placed in Bosnian language page instead of Differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language (or something like that) I went to other pages mentioning subjects about these languages. I can't get away from the impression that the whole series of articles base on the mother fact of all that those are three different languages. And further more, articles say that those languages come from the same dialect. I don't know if I'm crazy, uneducated or the terms are like that in my country, but dialects are variations of one language. That means that dialects of one language become another three languages in these articles, what is a complete nonsense. That pyramid of distinctiveness between languages and dialects is based only on differences. That means that one language must have enough distinct elements from the other one to be considered a different language or even different dialect.

It's not that simple really. Maybe I'm biased, but I don't agree with your interpretation about "mother fact of all". You and I can agree that B, C, S and SC are very similar/same, but "language is a dialect with state and army". In other words, these languages are same from purely linguistic point of view, but they're distinct from political point of view. Duja 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All diferences you can find between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language are neglible - it all comes up to only synonims, and you can't say that that's different language. They all use both cyrillic and latin letters in an identical way. The grammar is completely identical and there are no valid, even malicious, sources which could brake down that fact. Furthermore, Bosnian language is recognized only by Bosnia & Herzegovina's muslim population which makes a minority in B&H (less than 50%) and Bosnian Serbs, Croats and others are strongly opposed to that name which puts them in the same bowl.

But Bosnian is also accepted by B&H constitution, as well as official documents of Republika Srpska and Serbia (under the name "Bošnjački").

I'm afraid that these articles will come up to plain Bosnia & Herzegovina muslims propaganda and that it will stay that way and that would make this encyclopedia only a worthless peace of Internet. I personally think that I myself have greater influence on people not familiar with these matters regarding these "languages" and I will tell to anyone who asks for my opinion that this part of encyclopedia is worthless fabrication of facts. And you know what happens when you pour one drop of vinegar into a bucket of vine - it all turns into vinegar.

The point is, you can not deny the people the right to call their language as they want. It's silly that such a big deal is raised about it, but they did find term "Serbo-Croatian" inappropriate/offensive and now call it Bosnian, I don't think denying it would be fair. Separate B, C, and S did enter official documents world-wide despite what you think about it. Note that e.g. Serbian Wikipedia also has separate articles. Duja 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, to conclude this, I will never again believe anything that is written in Wikipedia and I will tell everyone I know to do like that also. I'm not in the mood to change any of the articles because I see what is going on here.

That's your right, as well. I don't think that Wiki B, C, S and SC language articles are in such a bad shape, and that they express all points of view appropriately (although I'm considering starting a fairly large common series of articles on grammar, morphology, etc.) Duja 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dečani[edit]

As you moved my article from Dečani] to Visoki Decani Monastery, please take care to dab several dozens pages that link to Dečani to the article on the monastery. If you take a look at "what links here", you will see that most links refer to the monastery and not the town. --Ghirlandajo 11:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

excelent work by adding bridge sub-categories (i wanted yo do that but didn't find time). thanks!

Vang 12:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge[edit]

Hi there, good work with the bridge stuff - that compound squeeze is pretty incredible! (way above me!) Good work with tidying everything up. Perhaps we should edit the main article a bit more at some time (it seems a bit disorganised) though I'm enjoying adding interesting hands atm... btw my double?

Someone already edited contract bridge; I like it, and I'll just prettify it.

stepping stone squeeze is slightly altered - in reality I had the 7 of hearts not the Jack so the defence could have made another by throwing the Ace (or king) of hearts on the diamond. However, that's pretty damn hard to find a the table... Want to do a Morton's fork coup?

I'll see what I can do with Morton's fork (In the making are also Bath coup, Vienna coup, Sacrifice (bridge))

I spent ages making up the scissors coup one and I spent a short while trying to make up an example of a MF (I can't actually remember any I've done or in fact if I've even done one :-) ). Do you like the poorbridge.com coups btw? I'm not sure if dishonest coups should be in there but I stuck the superglue coup in after someone put in an 'Alcatraz Coup' (never heard of that one).

Really funny stuff, but Alcatraz and Superglue should really be under separate section on coup (bridge). There was an ancient but funny article in Bridge World about Alcatraz coup (starting how a bridge expert arrives at a "humanitary" tournament in Alcatraz), but it also contained several other "inspiring" coups. I don't have the BW issue anymore though.

On reflection I thik they should - the poorbridge.com article's Superglue-show-up-squeeze at trick 7 is amazing.

Re Alcatraz/Superglue, I'd like to turn your attention to so-called "Law 94", which I stumbled upon in rec.games.bridge, quote:

Shooting you is allowed by Law 94: "When a player tries to apply a tricky interpretation of the Laws in order to accomplish something that everyone knows he shouldn't be able to, the Director is permitted to shoot, defenestrate, whack on the head with a pipe wrench, or take other appropriate action against that player." (OK, so most Law books don't have Law 94, but it's clearly there in my copy of the Law book; the fact that it's written in pencil and in my own handwriting doesn't seem relevant.)

Also is there any way of colouring the ♥K icons to be red/black?

It's possible by inserting something like <font color="#0000FF" size="4"> & hearts;</font>K, resulting in ♥K. IMO it would be simpler to create a template page, called e.g. {{Hsuit}} containing that text, and then simply typing {{Hsuit}} would result in appropriate symbol; also, the default Arial symbols are too small. However, someone should write a "bot" (a SQL/perl application) to replace the existing stuff, and I don't know how to do it.

Is this the right place to put stuff like this? I'm not particularly experienced here. Cambion 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two general approaches I've seen: to develop the talk on each other's talk page, or to discuss only on one. I think a slight majority of people uses the former, as you don't have to watch other peoples' pages. I prefer the latter, as I can see entire discussion on one place, and it's not the problem to watch the other user's talk page as long as you're interested in discussion. Of course, the discussion related with specific article should go to that article's talk page. Duja 19:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

83.131.46.163[edit]

Možda ne bi bilo loše kada bi ovog vandala prijavili. Ili reći administratorima da se opomene. Elem, pozivam te da se prijaviš na Wikipediju na srpskom jeziku i doprineseš našen enciklopedijskom fondu. Pored ove, tu su još i 3 ostale Wikipedije na našem jeziku (bs, hr i sh). Pozdrav, --M. Pokrajac 22:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Duja. I have been nominated for adminship here: [1] Care to vote? HolyRomanEmperor 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Proposal for adminship[edit]

Thank you for the compliment of proposing me for adminship. I must say I never expected something like this to happen, so I'm a bit doubtful what to do now... I shall take some time to decide whether I accept the nomination (there's no need to rush, is there?) and then inform you of my decission. Thanks for the proposal, anyway. --Dijxtra 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to inform you I decline your nominiation. Full elaboration of my reasons you can find here. --Dijxtra 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prijedor[edit]

I don't necessarily have anything against your version (that was the compromise I myself had suggested) but I prefer the version on the Cazin page. It was agreed upon by me, Dado, and HolyRomanEmperor. Only Nikola continues to revert the changes without making any attempt at a compromise. Asim Led 23:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I did not notice. Asim Led 19:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Karađorđević or Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia[edit]

Any comments? Zocky 20:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting, vandalism etc[edit]

As for number one: If I feel like I need to talk to Izehar about the 3 revert rule then it is my every right to do so. Damir Mišić 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number two: It is non of your business to decide what other users may think of my editings, for your information most bosnian editors are most approval of my edits. The only one that I can think of that does not approve with me in everything is user:Live Forever .

Number three: I will contact the bosnian editors and discuss mesa selimovic with them since user:Millosh is totally ignoring every oppurtunity to have a dialogue. Damir Mišić 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number four: I too wish you a happy new year and I will miss your editings at wikipedia, scout's honour! Damir Mišić 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian and spanish Bosnian is called Bosniaco, in French Bosnian Is called Bosniaque (pronounced Bosniak). Now fench,spanish and italian are latin languages whereas english is a germanic. Bosniak is derived from the latin version of bosnian. stop disturbing the article please. Damir Mišić 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More convincing in what? Damir Mišić 12:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sukobi?[edit]

Kakve sukobe imaš sa Damirom Mišićem? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slicne probleme smo imali na Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina i Ban (title). (vidi history). Nije on loš u suštini, samo mislim da bi trebalo da prekine da se pretvara da je Hrvat. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo ti jedan rijetki primjer gdje Hrvati i Srbi (a bogami i Slovenci) sarađuju. :) Ljudevit Posavski --HolyRomanEmperor 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the Bridge glossary! It's looking very good. If we could get Bridge (game) pages looking as good as Go (game) pages, it'd be a beautiful thing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croats[edit]

I say we remove the Genetics and Cuisine sections, as they are inappropriate to the article in question. What do you think? Antidote 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srpska zastava[edit]

Posto se ti bavis na Serbs, da te pitam da li na wiki postoji neka crveno-plavo-bijelo bez grba da je stavim na Serbs of Croatia? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? Što je? Rekoh nešto pogrešno? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A, OK. Sretna Nova (zakasnjena) usput! --HolyRomanEmperor 13:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorani[edit]

Samo da ti kazem da isti lik isto radi i na Gorani. Nikola 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity[edit]

Thank you for taking pains to inform me, although it's actually written some place in the "Welcome" stuff. I even expected I could be identified by name, so I'm surprised that you only got the administrator's name and other general info.

The thing is I don't like logging in and I don't like feeling permanently engaged in an initiative. I didn't sign my posts, because on some occasions I'd got the impression that you people have some way of identifying me anyway.

Sincerely yours, 85.187.203.123

Serbs Verification[edit]

Nice work on the Talk:List of Serbs verification. Now all I wonder is if these people are worthy enough of a Wikipedia page (in your opinion), rather than just being notable. Also, we need some mass translations from Serbian wikipedia to be conducted in order to get some red links filled out on the List of Serbs#Scientists & Inventors section. You can find an index I made for the job here: Template:Serbia portal/Things you can do If you ever find the time to translate any, that would be incredibly beneficial (I would do it myself but I am still somewhat unfamiliar with the language). Also, we are lacking articles on some people in that same section, so if you know of anyone who has extensive knowledge of the person or their works, make sure to recruit them to start an article. The article Đuro Kurepa also needs major expansion. Thanks for any help. ~~ Antidote.

Frankly, I just Googled about them, and except Uroš Đurić, I didn't hear of any them before. According to WP:Notability, these people are (probably) worthy enough of a Wikipedia page, but the general problem is that there are missing ex-Yu articles about more important persons. I'll take a look at Template:Serbia portal/Things you can do. Also, I'd like to turn your attention to WP:TIE page, where translation requests should be listed. I'm not sure how many Serbo-croatian speakers watch that page, but you can give it a shot too to receive some more attention. Duja 09:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Image:Flag of Serbia.svg[edit]

I originally obtained the state flag of Serbia from the xrmap flag collection (which is public domain), and since anyone can easily create the flag of Serbia without the arms, that version is considered ineligible for copyright. Denelson 83 01:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molise Croats[edit]

Thank you for your comment. You're right, irony and cynicism have no place in Wikipedia, I'm sorry for that. I also didn't know about the official procedure for moving the page, thanks. But it isn't necessary. With "Molise Slavs", they're breaking the Wikipedia rule of "no original research", since the existing literature overwhelmingly prefers "Molise Croats". They can't promote their pet theories here, but accept what is considered general knowledge. --Zmaj 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems you were right - we had an edit war, so eventually I had to use WP:RM. I placed the voting section on Talk:Slavic dialect in Molise. You said you'd vote for it, I hope you still think so :-). --Zmaj 08:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tambura[edit]

Please don't remove {{copyedit}} from articles unless and until the required work has been done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did some copyediting – I thought it justified tag removal. Did it? Duja 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on India is the main problem; aside from some minor problems of punctuation, etc., the style is in real need of toning down (e.g.: "When tuned by a mastermusician, it produces a resplendent resonance, a swirling dance of harmonics which by micro-variations in tuning can create the proper tonal shades for the raga to be performed." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dab[edit]

Just so you know, "dab" in an edit summary means "disambiguation"; it's used to indicate that the edit disambiguates an ambiguous link. In other words, if a page has a link to a disambiguation page (say, Polish), and you modify this link to point directly to the intended page (say, Polish language), then your edit summary might be something like "dab Polish" or "dab Polish language" (both forms are common). It's misleading and confusing to use "dab" to mean "removal of redirect", as you seem to have meant it in your recent edits to Grammatical number. (It's not a particularly huge deal — neither is a particularly controversial edit, so it's probably not going to cause strife — but it's something to be aware of.) For more information on edit-summary abbreviations, see Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. Ruakh 13:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tambura[edit]

???? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!. :-)

Now seriously, what's the problem? I put the merge tag (maybe some else was in order as well) and presented my idea in Talk:Pandura so that I don't repeat them. Duja 07:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no merge tag on Tambura, nor on Pandura — and there still isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF??? Now I see what you're confused at... so am I. I swear I did put it; maybe I forgot to click on "save page", closing the preview, or Gremlins have attacked Wikipedia :-). I'll put the tags (I'll try to find more appropriate one first). Duja 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed Pasha Sokolović[edit]

Duja, we have opened yet another spill of countless & endless disputes at this article; so could you please go over there and orchestrate a mediation? I've seen your contributions and you seem like an expert that can solve that.

The current version of the article says that he was born of Orthodox Bosniak parents, that the fact regarding his brother - Makarije - is just another Serb myth disregarded by Bosniaks as valuable and that the renewal of the Pech Patriarchate is some claimed just by Serb authers. I made some explainations (Bajica Sokolovic, see the history), but they were unacceptable. I think that the current version of the article is POV too. Care to yield an agreement? --HolyRomanEmperor 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed Paša Sokolović[edit]

Pa, kad je baš tražio, evo, stavih sve izvore u članak. No, ne znam zašto si izbacio onaj dio o Mileševi ipak je sourced (vidi sam članak).

Ne znam što onaj inzisitira da stavim izvore koji su strani (kada već jesam), ali evo mu direktno (mada ne znam što više može promijeniti njegov stav): Philip Mansel i njegov Constantinople Amyn B Sajoo i njegovi Islamski studiji. Ne znam više što mi je raditi. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dujo[edit]

Evo, ovdje je sve objasnjeno - od imena preko svega: Знаменити Срби Мусломани in 1906 godine. Mislim da ce ti se knjiga sama po sebi svidjeti. Poz! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPFY[edit]

Damn, ti ode upravo u trenu kad smo dcabrilo i ja krenuli da objavimo projekt :-) Kroz 5 minuta, nas projekt ce biti ziv ;-) --Dijxtra 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I officialy announce that Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Yugoslavia is formaly open :-) --Dijxtra 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Former Yugoslavia[edit]

Duja, WikiProject Former Yugoslavia is now up and running. You are invited to come and participate! --dcabrilo 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed![edit]

Well, it appears that Emir Arven has given up of the article on Mehmed pasha, so Live Forever and I returned to writing a normal article. :) I guess that three-day ban for agitation & anger. :D Anyway, I thank you for your efforts. So, we now have a Bosniak (Live) a Vlach (me) and a Serbian wikipedian that can normally (finally) work the article. Hey, you're partly Croatian, right? Why don't you join up so that we have all of historical Bosnians? Too bad we haven't got an Illyrian... Maybe we should invite an Albanian? Cheers! --HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bajo_in_intro[edit]

Yeah, you're most probably right. Sorry, anyways. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabic l, pseudo-eta etc.[edit]

I'll put this also on talk page of "Differences of ...", you know.
1.Please, make archive, your talk page is getting too long.

2.Of course these words are not of Greek origin, but with the development of language, they are felt as "ita" in Serbian. Similar thing happened in Croatian, where some "e" in some words began to be felt as "yat", e.g. in "susjed/susid".

3.About "l", sorry for wrong expression, I wanted to note the case of Croatian standard "sokol, vol, stol" versus Serbian standard "soko, vo, sto". Do you get me now? That's the "l" I wanted to talk about. Kubura 12:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]