Talk:Montenegrin language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutrality

The first line says that the neutrality of this article is disputed and we should see its talk page, but the talk page is empty. What exactly is disputed and what are the arguments of both sides? --romanm (talk) 22:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I am mostly removed from Balkan nationalistic issues on Wikipedia, it would seem to me that Nikola Smolenski is a Serbian nationalist troll here on Wikipedia, going to every single page relating to the Balkans and pushing a Serbian nationalist POV (not that we don't have other POV problems in the area...),

Could you substantiate this claim? Nikola 08:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your contribs are evidence enough. Just go through a few pages...

Well, I reviewed most of Nikola's recent edits, and the great majority of them seem quite reasonable. You are quite free to disagree with him (as I do at times). But characterizing him as a "nationalist troll" is not helpful and not warranted. Jonathunder 21:46, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

including on such pages as this which should probably be dealt with by people who actually know something about Montenegrin rather than Serbians who want this page to say "Montenegrin is not a language" and discount the claims of those who would say it is a language (I would say that Montenegrin is an independent language just as much as Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian are,

Could you substantiate this claim? Nikola 08:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What claim? Basically everything I said in that part of the message was a judgement or opinion on my part, not a factual claim.

Well then, could you substantiate your judgment or opinion that Montenegrin is an independent language just as much as Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian are? Nikola 12:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

but I am not ready to make a judgement on any of THEIR claims to being independent languages because I know my opinion will get me hammered on no matter what it is). Basically, an anonymous user as well as a couple of logged-in users have been making helpful edits to this page, which Nikola continually reverts.

No, this is not true. Since 16th October I see no edits except reversions. The version to which I am reverting was also reverted to by Joy, who has apparently since gave up. Nikola 08:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check diffs before reverting? It seems that it's no longer... well, what Joy said.

Well, no. People who engage in revert wars almost always revert to the same version, so I think that I am not obliged to check each and every diff only because of the remote possibility that one of them was different. Besides, I am reviewing the diffs now and differences are quite small and "useful facts" not too useful and not too facts. Nikola 12:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. However, the anonymous user from 21x.y.z.w, who sometimes logs in as User:Montenegro, also appears to have amended his version since to not be blatant censoring and instead add some useful factoids, and we should try to integrate it, not just revert it. I haven't had time to look at it yet, but I will eventually. --Joy [shallot] 11:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If he genuinely has a problem with this page the way Montenegrins are trying to make it, perhaps he should duke it out with them in a flamewar on the talkpage rather than a revert war on the article itself? (note, I did not add the notice) --Node 18:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link to Moldovan is more of a 'compare' rather than 'see also', because Moldovan is to Romanian what Montenegrin is to Serbian, I guess. --Joy [shallot] 23:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll rename the section to "Related articles". Nikola 12:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UNUDHR

I'd be interested in knowing how much the UNUDHR for Montenegrin would differ from the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian entries... Would it be identical to the Serbian (in Latin) or would there be other differences? http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/navigate/alpha.htm FrancisTyers 22:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Montenegrin is not a standard language, there is no way to tell if a text in Montenegrin or not. The declaration as spoken by someone from Montenegro would be practically the same as spoken by any other Serbian Ijekavian speaker. Nikola 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what I figured, and now from a Montenegrin nationalist? ;) - FrancisTyers 14:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Very funny. Nikola 13:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the same bullshit as the Moldovan language. There is a great trend in South Eastern Europe these days that every single little province comes up with its own language.

There is no Montenegrin language, there is no Bosniak language, no Croat language, no Macedonian language just like there is no Moldovan language.

All these countries have invented their own languages for obvious political reasons. I suspect Montenegrin leaders are so desperate to declare independence that they would even assert that they speak a "Montenegrin" language in order to seem different from the Serbs. Good luck with the NPOV.Duca 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I may agree with you, I'd have to point out that there are Bosnian/Croatian/Macedonian languages, no matter how "artificial" they are. The history behind "Macedonian" is actually rather interesting. :) - FrancisTyers

I know all about the "Macedonian" language. Same thing as "Moldovan" language. Duca 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just realised something.

There is no Montenegrin language, there is no Bosniak language, no Croat language, no Macedonian language just like there is no Moldovan language.

Surely if this is the case there is no Serbian language? ;) Just a South Slavic dialect continuum. - FrancisTyers 18:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say I do not understand all these discussions about Moldovan, Montenegrin, etc, and they seem to be a complete waste of time. The differences between the languages spoken in Argentina and in Mexico are certainly more significant than between those spoken in Serbia and Montenegro, but very few people would think of calling them "Argentinian" or "Mexican"; they call it "Spanish" (or sometimes "Castilian"). That does not mean that the people of Montenegro cannot form a separate country, just as so many others that share a common language. Even in Europe we have Germany and Austria! Tsf 13:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New phonemes

So, are there minimal pairs and what are they? Nikola 09:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In Montenegrin dialects, they are. Also, Trubeckoi-Jakobson theory should not be read literally. So: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• <some alophone><something else> -> means something;
• <some other alophone><something else> -> means nothing;

Are enough to have new phoneme. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In other words, if çutra is tomorrow (sutra) in some dialect and sutra means nothing, then ç is phoneme. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 10:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Who says that? Article on minimal pairs disagrees and so do I. Different speakers of the same dialect, even from the same family, might say the word as "śutra", "sjutra", "sutra" or even "šutra"; these are different phones, but the same phoneme. Not to mention that, if this would be taken as criteria, every language would have almost every phoneme: for example, Serbian would have dz which could be heard, for example, in "predznak", because "preznak" means nothing. Nikola 21:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone standardize some language where it is correct to say çutra and sutra means nothing, then this doesn't have any relation to pronounce of different speakers of the same dialect. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to standardise a language on a set of phonemes if the language doesn't have that set of phonemes. One may pretend to do so, but one cannot actually do so. Not to mention that no one even pretends. Nikola 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And about minimal pairs: If you say so, then phonemes "f" and "h" (or phonemes "u" and "dž") are not different phonemes in Serbian language because there are no words with meaning where they make opposition. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are? Fata/vata, hod/god, uvo/ovo, džak/čak on the top of my head. Nikola 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, show me opposition between 'f' and 'h' as well as between 'u' and 'dž' and don't behave like a vandal. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You are insisting on 'f' and 'h' because you probably know that 'h' can't be found in many Serbian dialects, and 'f' is found only in some of them. So you know that it would be very hard (or even impossible) to make opposition between them. How can you make opposition between 'u' and 'dž'? 'U' is a vowel, and 'dž' is a consonant! That's just like you ask someone to show you opposition between 'e' and 'j' in English, but in Serbian it is even more conflex, because two vowels one next to another are found in like 2% of all words. You are very clever, aren't you? :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

However, I have managed to found minimal pairs for f and h and for u and dž which will doubtless give me entrance into the history of Serbian linguistics ;) Nikola 22:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that you have behaved like a vandal when you changed an article to your liking. Reverted! --RockyMM 01:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, look through history of this article. There were {{expert}} template. I am an expert in that field (Shtokavian dialect and Shtokavian based standards). It seems that I have to spend a lot of time to explain some basic linguistic things to the people who don't know anything about linguistics as well as don't make differences between dialects and standard languages... So, do what do you want. I don't want to waste time with you. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look carefully at article history, you will see that it was me who had put {{expert}} template on the article. When you made edits to this article you never had introduced yourself as an expert, an basically what you did was that you made this article a little more NPOV and changed the order of the paragraphs. Not much of an expert needed to do that. To my knowledge 'Montenegrin language' is still not standardized and so far for all people who speak with Montenegrin dialect çutra and sjutra mean the same thing. That is until the standardization takes place by some appointed authority. And you are not wasting your time with me. You are trying to make this wikipedia article better. I feel that for a laic like me, your argument pro phonemes is not strong enough. But, it would be fair when actual standardization takes place that this paragraph should be deleted.

And another thing - it is very difficult to differentiate a dialect and a language with 'Montenegrin language' topic, because more than anything this is a political issue. Maybe the difference should be more elaborated in the article so that another confusion could be avoided?

And yet another thing - it seams to me that that paragraph with disputed sentence now looks awkward, but until someone, or you millos, make enough of an argument for that disputed sentence to be deleted. --RockyMM 22:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Put the tags in the article again and wait for someone else. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I will, but now I'm thinking that what this article needs more is a line or two about differences between a dialect and language. But for now I will not touch this sentence, at least until somebody else complains about it.--RockyMM 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how have I behaved like a vandal. You have deleted a sentence from the article. I started discussion about it. After you, in my opinion, haven't provided sufficient reason for its deletion, I have returned it.

From what I know, for a phoneme to be distinguished, it doesn't need to form a minimal pair with every other phoneme, just with some; or perhaps I can ask you to show me the minimal pair for ś and a, b, v, g, d, etc? Anyway, phonemes you have asked about do have minimal pairs: frka/hrka (and cognates) and, lo, u/dž (slang for "džabe").

Yes, 'dz' is phoneme in Serbian language which is not classified. Phonemes 'lj' and 'nj' were made in the similar process as contemporary 'dz' in Serbian. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, 'dz' is a phone and not a phoneme. Nikola 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If you take "predznak" as an example of a phoneme, you are wrong because word "predznak" iz composed of two word "pred" and "znak". It would be a phoneme if the word itself is not composed of two words. One cannot state that two letters that happen to stand next to each other form a phoneme. What's also important for a phone to "become" a phoneme is when a speaker pronounces certain phone he can abstract such phone as a phoneme, meaning he can abstract a phone as a separate etnity, different than other etnities that "are" phonemes. --RockyMM 01:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I said, the sound could be uttered by some people who say the word, but isn't a phoneme. Nikola 23:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I have asked at Talk:Minimal pair#Introduction and, as I said, another user confirmed me that minimal pair can exist only between two words, and not between a word and a non-word. So, I will remove dispute notice from the article. Nikola 16:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So, find the oppositions between 'a' and 'dž' in Serbian. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'a' and 'dž', of course. Nikola 08:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe. Even 'dz' is not inside of literary language, OK. But, try also with 'u' and 'j', 'f' and 'h' as well as with 'dž' and 'j' etc. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see where this is leading, here is a list of minimal pairs of dž and all other Serbian phonemes. Enjoy! :)

• A: a/dž
• B: buba/budža
• V: buva/budža
• G: gak/džak
• D: Buda/budža
• Đ: đak/džak
• E: e/dž
• Ž: žaba/džaba
• Z: za/dža
• I: i/dž
• J: baja/badža
• K: buka/budža
• L: lak/džak
• LJ: Ljuba/džuba
• M: mak/džak
• N: buna/budža
• NJ: banja/badža
• O: o/dž
• P: pak/džak
• R: rak/džak
• S: sa/dža
• T: bata/badža
• Ć: baća/badža
• U: u/dž
• F: fa/dža
• H: ha/dža
• C: cep/džep
• Č: čep/džep
• DŽ: n/a
• Š: šamija/džamija

As for other ones, there are ua/ja and, as I said before, frka/hrka.

I, however, completely fail to see how is this of any relevance to minimal pairs of completely unrelated phones in Montenegro. Nikola 10:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Grat work, but try to do it with other phonemes, too ;) (BTW, some of the cases are not good enough because (at least ;) ) in the case of consonant-consonant opposition you should keep in mind accents, too.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, again, if you find other combinations, it would be a good linguistic work and maybe I would start to trust to you that you are a great linguist ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavy vandalism by Ragusan

Point per point:

• The tone of the latest additions by Ragusan is all but encyclopediaic. It certainly is not neutral.
• "Brief" historical introduction is a more of--RockyMM 22:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC) an introduction to name Montenegro as territorial unit and is more suitable to an article about Montenegro, and has no place in a language article.
• The examples of using the letter "j" on language is totally unneeded and even more than that, confusing. Probably only a native speaker can get a grasp of what the author wanted to say.
• Other than the points above, the history of Ragusan's works show his tendency for vandalisms and putting unproven information to articles.--RockyMM 18:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

For User:Node_ue: There really is not need for big linguistic discussion about pronouncing letter "j" in Montenegrin variant of language. This article should be kept just for encyclopedic purpose and at encyclopedic level, not on higher level so that a native speaker is needed or linguistic expert to understand it.

And why should we exclude this information? You assert that it will only be useful to a native speaker or linguist... I disagree. --Node

On the other thing, I really like version by DCabrilo (Bolikita rulez :)) much more than this latest revision. But I'll let someone else revert it, I don't feel like doing this on my own.

Move

I am starting a poll here to move the page to Montenegrin (linguistics), since it isn't really a language, more like a dialect. HolyRomanEmperor 23:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with move because Montenegrin is the language in political sense (as well as other Shtokavian based languages). So, then we should move Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian into "(linguistics)" articles. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason that I stated that is that Montenegrin language does not really exist. Croatian and Bosnian are internationally accepted. Britannica has no mention of the Montenegrin language, and it says that they actually speak Serbian in there. HolyRomanEmperor 21:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The (linguistics) should be used to describe that the language is sporadic. It does not exist as an independant language. HolyRomanEmperor 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Montenegrin language exists in political sense. Around 20% of inhabitants of Montenegro say that they are talking Montenegrin as well as around 80% inhabitants of Serbia say that they are talking Serbian. So, this is not linguistic question and this name is correct. All articles named as "language" identify "languages in political sense", not "languages in linguistic sense". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this include Hittite language or English language? Nikola 16:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You want the answer on your question? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Only if it would be an interesting one ;) Nikola 08:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So, try to use some relevant sources about linguistics ;) Wikipedia may be good enough ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is not a single political entity which defines Hittite or English language, yet both have articles. Nikola 19:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Try to learn: Prescription and description. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Try to stop beating your wife. Nikola 19:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant according to these: Cantonese (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Flemish (linguistics). Logic says that we should also maove this to Montenegrin (linguistics). HolyRomanEmperor 20:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant according to these: Cantonese (linguistics), Mandarin (linguistics), Flemish (linguistics). Logic says that we should move this to Montenegrin (linguistics). HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it may be slightly misleading to have this article where it is. I mean no neutral/objective linguist calls Montenegrin a language in its own right. Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, the CIA World Factbook, you name it; no reliable source calls Montenegrin a language in its own right. Even the vast majority of Montenegrins would appear to disagree with this "separate Montenegrin language ideology". It is perfectly clear that there are serious reasons why this article should be moved (to where, that's still debeatable). According to Wikipedia:Verifiability:

• Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.
• The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.
• One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.

Has a reputable publisher stated that there is a separate Montenegrin language? Au contraire, all reputable publishers. Of course it is not necessary to move it to Montenegrin (linguistics). Montenegrin would do, or even Montenegrin (language). What is absolutely essential though is to avoid deliberetly glossing over the fact that the vast majority of linguists view Montenegrin as a Serbian dialect and not a language in its own right. Rex^(talk) 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: In response to your enquiry Nikola, the English and Hittite languages are called languages because they are recognised as such by every linguist on Earth. Can the same be said for Montenegrin? Rex^(talk) 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What are your criteria for differentiating between a "language" and a "dialect" ? As far as I'm aware there are no fixed rules. I'll ask some of the professors of Linguistics in my department if they think Montenegrin is a language. Chances are they'll say yes. Why? Because no one really cares and there is no fixed criteria. If some people want to call it a language fine, its a language. If others don't whatever. The only people who care either way are wierd nationalist types with their strange agendas. If ~123,251 human beings want to call it a language then who are you to judge? Wikipedia is not the encyclopaedia Britannica, if it was it would look much different. - FrancisTyers 23:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Montenegrin dialect". There are Eastern-Herzegovian (spoken in the most of Montenegro) and Zeto-South-Sandzak (spoken in the capitol, Podgorica) dialects in Montenegro. Montenegrin is language just because 22% of inhabitants of Montenegro said that their native language is Montenegrin. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, if there is a dialect that is spoken predominantly in Montenegro, it could be reasonably called Montenegrin dialect. Nikola 19:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no "Montenegrin dialect" and no one calls it like thet here (in S&M) and you know it. Oh, sorry... I am trying to oppose to Nikola Smolenski, the great Serbian linguist. Sorry, I wouldn't do that again... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

OK then, if you want to nitpick, dialects spoken in Montenegro could be reasonably called Montenegrin dialects. Nikola 13:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are Montenegrin dialects, but we are talking here about prescribed standard language which is called "Montenegrin language", not about dialects, not about specific pronounce. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Prescribed standard language which is called "Montenegrin language" does not exist. No one prescribed it, no one has authority to accept a prescription as the standard. Nikola 11:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that a seperate Montenegrin language exists? As far as I can see, Britannica, Encarta, Hutchinson, and in a nutshell, every encyclopaedia I can find, says that in Montenegro, people speak Serbian. Even Ethnologue doesn't have an entry on Montenegrin! Where did this Montenegrin language theory come from (which incidentally is rejected as science fiction by the vast majority of Montenegrins themselves)? Rex^(talk) 12:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Honest linguist would say that there is only one standard language system all over S&M, B&H and Croatia. Whatever the name of the language is. All of that (standard) languages are based on Shtokavian dialect. BUT, it seems that this fact is not relevant to Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue etc. The relevant axis is not linguistic, but politic. So, I really don't understand others then Serbian nationalists why they want to remove the name Montenegrin language. Please, try, for example, with Serbo-Croatian language, first. This standard language doesn't have any political support unlikely Montenegrin (around 100.000 of humans!). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 08:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you have failed to provide sources. I knew it *smirk*. How do I know that there is even an political issue, if not a linguistic one regarding this language/dialect? How do I know that it doesn't exist only in your fantasies? Can you provide a source which confirms what you are saying, because as far as I can see, so far it's a case of your word against Britannica's. Hmmm, who shall prevail :-) Rex^(talk) 20:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Enough sources are included in article. Montenegrin government says that they are using Montenegrin language and this is enough relevant. Ethnologue doesn't have Montenegrin just because they didn't add it yet. I am sure that they didn't have Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian before 1990s, too (but only Serbo-Croatian). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Francis told to you the point for a number of times. And I am telling to you the same as someone who has papers about standard Serbian language in the main periodics for standardization of Serbian language (Papers of the Council for Standardization of Serbian Language; my paper can be find here (in Serbian) ). (And note that my sentences are not it the sense "it is like that" but "it should be like that, you should do that, etc." I made one prescriptive paper about what should be the standard of Serbian language in the sense of computers: code pages, fonts, using markup languages etc.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The question of "language existance" is not the matter of linguistics. Linguistics describes language systems, but it doesn't say that some language exists or not. (Of course, linguistics can say that Hitite language doesn't exist anymore because there are no people who are talking even near to the Hitite language system.) Language constitution/existance is a matter of social relations between humans. In the past such relations was less formal and more "natural". Today social relations are very formal and all cultural characteristics are closely related to political goals of some social group. And language is one of those "cultural characteristics". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree with this at all. Linguistics studies language systems, but it can't define what is a language, can't tell whether something is a language or not, so hence can't say what a language system is? That would be the only science unable to define its subject then. Wikipedia article on linguistics defines it as "the scientific study of human language". Nikola 08:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

So, any "scientific evidence" is not relevant in this matter; i.e. don't try to find pro and contra in linguistics because there is no one linguistic evidence about it; scientific evidences can be find only in sociology and political science. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you one question: Why do you call your language "Albanian"? Because you know that the language system spoken by you has evidence somewhere that it's name is "Albanian"? The name is written in language structure? No, you are calling the language with such name (in English, of course) because there is political will to call it in such way. And it would be like that until political will for that exists. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is encyclopedia and it describes facts, not some "ideal system". And the fact is that 100.000 humas say that they are talking Montenegrin language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

We must draw a line! Why not make Jibberish language article then? HolyRomanEmperor 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not, if there are 20,000+ people saying that they speak the language?--RockyMM 15:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Because it doesn't exist? Nikola 19:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears the Montenegrin authorities have begun to promote a distinct Montenegrin language more vigorously in anticipation of their independence referendum, as can be attested by the recent changes to the websites linked to in the article. At http://www.predsjednik.cg.yu/eng/, Crnogorksa-srpska verzija has been changed to Crnogorska verzija, while at http://www.gom.cg.yu/eng/ SRPSKI has become CRNOGORSKI. Strangely, srpski is still intact at http://www.montenegro.yu/english/naslovna/index.htm. Perhaps they haven't got round to it yet.--Theathenae 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Has anyone heard the news about Bunjevac language (this is not a joke), and what are your comments? Nikola 19:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be covered in Szabadka. - FrancisTyers 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Nikola Smolenski

OK, I'll review all of your recent additions:

• while most of its speakers consider it a dialect of Serbian language It has already been said in the first sentence of the article that 'Montenegrin language is a name given to ... dialect'. There's no need to repeat that. Also, it has also been said that 'some' of the speakers refer to the dialect as a language, so reader can deduce that there're others who do not refer to dialect as a language. By using qualificator most you're clearly pushing POV of the latter speakers.
  • To ... Ijekavian-Štokavian dialect. That is not the same as Serbian dialect. Yes, it's obvious that most of the speakers don't refer to the dialect as a language, but as which language they refer to it? By using qualificator most I am pushing an undisputed fact. Nikola 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• The whole paragraph about paralelism with other languages, Serbo-Croatian variants, is not needed. First, it is established so far in the article that we are talking about dialect and that as a language it is not recognized anywhere. Second, stating what most speaker say is really, really unbiased. In this manner you're discriminating those people who say that they speak Montenegrin language.
  • Yes, it is needed. On this very talk page here we have examples of

including on such pages as this which should probably be dealt with by people who actually know something about Montenegrin rather than Serbians who want this page to say "Montenegrin is not a language" and discount the claims of those who would say it is a language (I would say that Montenegrin is an independent language just as much as Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian are,

• • and

I'd be interested in knowing how much the UNUDHR for Montenegrin would differ from the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian entries... Would it be identical to the Serbian (in Latin) or would there be other differences?

• • So, it is neccessary to explain the difference. Nikola 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• changing geographical references used in Serbia, Bosnia or Croatia) to language references used in standard Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian) is actually something I like. This way is more correct. Vocabulary is part of the language, not part of the state. This addition is good.
• Your last change is OK, but you've misspelled 'they'. {{dubious}}tag I've put for this sentence lost meaning when someone changed the sentence to what was like before. This can stay, but with proper spelling and some word order changes.

So this is it. What I wanted to say about Milo wining elections is that this issue is very political. As Millos have said here sr:Разговор:Црногорски језик it is a matter of day when Montenegrin proponets get ISO code for language, and some institution will appear and standardize the language, and we will have internationally recognized Montenegrin language. But, if Milo loses elections (and the upcoming referendum), whole thing will change. Until clear outcome of this matter, this article (before your disputed changes) is very neutral, and can be changed easily whatever course this whole thing takes. As you have demostrated with your edits. If Montenegrin gets recognized, we can easily change word dialect to language. If everybody in Montenegro stops calling their dialect a language, we can incorporate that also. So if you have nothing against, I will make changes that reflect what I have said above in say ... a week.--RockyMM 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, this is mostly irrelevant for the article. If Milo wins, and makes Montenegrin the official language of Montenegro, and inserts it in ISO 639, this should of course be mentioned in intro but wouldn't change the fact that most of its speakers claim to speak Serbian language. Its standard would warrant description, of course, but if it is standardised after Nikcevic we'd had to mention that the language isn't actually spoken by anyone, and if it's standardised after the actual speech, we'd has to mention that most speakers refer to it as Serbian. Nikola 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Move vote

Vote here for Move:

• Support. Reasons are obvious, it's not a language until it gains an international status like one. HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no linguistic way of distinguishing between a language and a dialect. The distinction is socio-political. Some Montenegrins refer to Montenegrin as a language, notably the websites of the President and the Government. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I support a move to Montenegrin (linguistics) or Montenegrin. There is no neutral evidence to suggest that an independent Montenegrin language exists. Rex^(talk) 18:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The main evidence are 22% of inhabitants of Montenegro who say that they are talking Montenegrin language (not Serbian, not Serbo-Croatian, not Croatian, not Bosnian, but Montenegrin). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 22% wow! What about the remaining 78%, what do they consider their language? Don't they count? What about Britannica which fails to mention a Montenegrin language, what about the CIA World Factbook, what about Encarta, what about every neutral linguist on the planet? I suggest you read Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Most commonly, Montenegrin is known as a Serbian dialect. This blatant minority POV pushing has got to stop. Rex^(talk) 20:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • 22% is all percent that matters.--RockyMM 11:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Again, this is not a question of linguistics or linguists. - FrancisTyers 14:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Whereas Flemish (linguistics) and Mandarin (linguistics) are? Can you provide us with any kind of source? I highly doubt that you can, as you are talking off the top of your head (that's a fact). Forcing an entire population to change their perception of their language for the sake of a minority. Truly sickening! Rex^(talk) 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Irrelevant. What I said still stands. I suggest you actually try asking some linguists. - FrancisTyers 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I did, I just checked Britannica and Ethnologue. No Montenegrin language there! That's because one doesn't exist. Why don't you provde some evidence for a change *smirk*. Rex^(talk) 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Did you ask a linguist yet? - FrancisTyers 20:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Ethnologue are linguists, and they say that there is only a Montenegrin dialect, but they also say that there is a croatian language. Why are you interested in linguists all of a sudden, didn't you say that this issue doesn't concern linguists? Also, what evidence have you provided to prove that a political issue even exists? Nothing - so far, it's a case of linguists and Britannica's word against yours (you may even by lying who woulda thunk it?). Rex^(talk) 20:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
                    • The reason I suggested asking linguists is because every neutral one of them would say the same as I am saying... There is no linguistic basis for distinguishing between a "language" and a "dialect". This does not concern linguists, something you would find out quickly from asking one. I've searched the Ethnologue site and I can't find a reference to Montenegrin as a "dialect", could you provide a link? - FrancisTyers 22:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
                      • Here. A list of all the languages spoken in Serbia and Montenegro. See how detailed that list is? Where is Montenegrin? I'm not saying that there is a way to know whether Montenegrin is a language or a dialect. All I know is that the vast majority of sources and the Montenegrin people themselves, do not view Montenegrin as a language in its own right. Therefore, as the most common name is used under Wikipedia policy, that is what should be done here. Rex^(talk) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose There should be an article like this, which explains to what one referes when one mentiones Montenegrin language. Montenegrin (linguistics) should be an article about linguistics alone, not about ongoing contraversy of the issue.--RockyMM 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect from here to there would stay anyway. Nikola 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike Cantonese (linguistics), this is not the matter of linguistics, but the matter of politics. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 19:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - see also Talk:Arvanitic language (in one phrase: if those people believe they speak a language and not a dialect of something else it's good enough for a title). +MATIA ☎ 19:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has nothing to do with governments and international recognition (politics does not dictate contents on Wikipedia). If a concept exists and is notable, there is no reason for it not to exist in Wikipedia as is. --Dejan Čabrilo 00:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - it is not officially recognised as a language, there is no standard, most speakers of what is claimed to be Montenegrin language claim that they don't speak it. Nikola 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment According to most sources, in this moment it is not a language. Also I would say that (in my oppinion) it is in a process of forming and sooner or latter it will gain that status. Especially if Montenegro gets independant country, because it is a fact that politics have much to do with a recognition of a modern language. This is only my oppinion. Anyway, I am not an expert. Macedonian^(talk) 05:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment sociolinguistics is a very complicated area. +MATIA ☎ 21:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with FrancisTyers. Jonathunder 20:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose "A language is a dialect with a flag and an army"; and at the moment Montenegro has both. Montenegrin or Montenegrin (linguistics) would appear to be the rational compromise; if anyone is interested. Septentrionalis 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral -- use Montenegrin (linguistics) instead. AjaxSmack 08:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Can we say the vote is over? How long do these things last? Current tally is: Support: 3, Oppose: 5. - FrancisTyers 15:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Milosh sounds reasonable. If they want it that way, they can have it. Although, I must say that I am sad. For all my life I am a crusader against the Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian languages (nothing lower that the Serbo-Croatian) and now I see a montenegrin language... HolyRomanEmperor 11:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You have my sympathy. If the movers were not arguing that this is a dialect of "Serbian", I might have expressed a different opinion....Septentrionalis 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I'd prefer they just called it something neutral like Balkanian. But denying one won't make the others "re-merge" :/ - FrancisTyers 13:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Shtokavian based (standard) languages" or even "Neo-Shtokavian based (standard) languages" because all of the languages are Neo-Shtokavian based. Through some time I would make some action to implement that because at least Croatian and Serbian communities support such term. For example, there is a sense to describe the basic language structure of all languages at one place, but not to be offensive toward Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian communities. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that many Croatian nationalists would get insulted if you count the Croatian as shtokav... (it's only partly that way) HolyRomanEmperor 14:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Croatian standard language is fully Shtokavian based and this is the fact which is known to all educated Croats. Kaykavian and Chakavian are Croatian dialects without significant influence into standard language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Google search

Look at this. Someone, while finding information for article "Montenegrin language" on Uncyclopedia, searched the Montenegrin Internet using Google, looking for examples from this article: Montenegrin vs Serbian and Montenegrin vs Serbian. I think this is telling enough about "Montenegrin" and about accuracy of this silly Wikipedia article. --Djordje D. Bozovic 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Montenegrin language in Kosovo

Most of the Montenegrins in the west of Kosovo speek this language they are not like the serb they are somthing els, from the cultur and life. --Hipi Zhdripi 23:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Can you cite your sources for this, or are you basing this on a feeling? --RockyMM 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No I m not basing on my fieleng but, Im sourcen for more neutral statistic. This is wery wery importen for the serbian gouverment and for the montenegriens wich dont wont to be a treachter in Kosovo problem. For exempl [1] [2], [3][4]--Hipi Zhdripi 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I CANT BELIEVE

I cant believe that this have its own article.....Crnogorski jezik hahahahahahahahah damn this is soooo stupidDzoni 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian comparison

The Indonesian article mentions it is a standarized version of a dialect of Malay yet it is still considered a seperate language, by that standard Montegrin is a seperate language, but I'm wondering if there is a difference between the standard, the political, and the linguistic definitions of a language and whether it should be said that it may qualify as a seperate language in one or more of those categories but not in the others.

The difference is that there are two dialects of Serbian spoken in teritory of Montenegro, and that there is no standard for Montenegrin, yet, as no body of authority has not yet published Montenegrin standard, or vocabulary or grammar.

Sign your comments!--RockyMM 12:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a language

This is an article about a dialect, not a language. Gratned that some consider it a language, a MINORITY, actually. Name changed to dialect, discuss the opinions on wether its a language or not in the article, not the name of the article. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to move it, put up a move request. - FrancisTyers 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article proves what I'm talking about, why fight it? Also, give me a link where I'm supposed to request a move, if you still think that you know better than me. -- serbiana - talk 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM — and yes being a Serbian person you know so much more than me. - FrancisTyers 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that, if there are those that want to call it a language, they have every right to do so. If we can have Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, then we can certainly have Montenegrin. But in the end I think this is a non-issue, since in a month or so Montenegro will be an independant country and they will almost certainly make constitutional changes that will resolve this. --Dr.Gonzo 22:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Croatian is different from Serbian, Bosnian is the name of Serbian and Croatian spoken in Bosnia for reasons that date back to the wars of the 1990s. There was no war in Montenegro, I don't see why Montenegrin should be a separate language. If Austria can use German, why can't Montenegro use Serbian? But we're not discussing that, Montenegrin is not a language, according to all official sources, even the Montenegro gov't website is in Serbian: [5] -- serbiana - talk 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The most common examples are Moldovan language vs Romanian language and Macedonian language vs Bulgarian language. Practically identical languages, except two letters in the alphabet are different. According to this article, standard Montenegrin will have three different letters. In that case, there must be a Montenegrin language article. --Telex 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The languages you mentioned are internationally recognized. When the Montenegrin language is recognized, I will fully support the word "language" in the name of the article. But now, it is officially not a language, and its not the same as the examples you pointed out. For now, there is no such thing as the Montenegrin language. -- serbiana - talk 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan recognized? I think you should check the Republic of Moldova and related articles. Every time the language name "Moldovan" is mentioned, the word "Romanian" is placed in brackets beside it. You could do that here; Montenegrin (Serbian) or Montenegrin/Serbian as they are both names for the same thing. [6] uses "Crnogorski" btw. Also, compare [7] with [8]. --Telex 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have articles Tsakonian language and Pontic language for two undoubtable Greek dialects, we have Arvanitic language for an undoubtable Albanian dialect. The name of the article has no real significance - what we do, is just use what's more common (with the exception of redirecting the article to Serbian language). --Telex 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm affraid you're wrong, in the article about the Moldovan language it says that "Moldovan is the official name for the Romanian language...", did you read that, official? The unofficial website you gave me means nothing, my source is 100% reliable. Google hits mean nothing, while I admit it's easier to say Montenegrin, than Ijekavian-Shtokavian dialect, it's absolutely wrong to call a dialect a language, especially if it is not internationally recognized. -- serbiana - talk 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It works for Arvanitic, Tsakonian and Pontic. --Telex 00:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And citing other wrong uses of the word "language" doesn't make this misuse of the word OK. -- serbiana - talk 00:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd be more accurate to move it to Montenegrin than to Montenegrin dialect, because it's not really a dialect - Ijekavian-Shtokavian is not just spoken in CG. --Telex 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I would just write an article about the Ijekavian-Shtokavian dialect, and add a section about the "Montenegrin language" and explain the controversy. That would be the best thing, but try to convince the Montenegrins... Moving it to simply "Montenegrin" is wrong, because the word is used for Montenegrins, an ethnic group mostly living in Montenegro. -- serbiana - talk 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the arguments in the last page move. - FrancisTyers 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Macedonian and Bulgarian are quite different.
 : I'm against moving the article, because soon enough there will be Montenegrin standard published by Montenegrin Academy of Science. --RockyMM 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RockyMM. Besides, Montenegrin was a language and still is, though the Serbs changed the language dramatically. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Montenegrin was a language and still is, though the Serbs changed the language dramatically.", this sentence confuses me, Montenegrin was and still is a language? Nidžo, Before Milo Đukanović came to power, kids in school were learning Serbian from serbian school books. And long before that, every single leader of Montenegro, wheter he was Serb or Montenegrin, claimed that and did speak Serbian. There is just simply no evidence that Montenegrin exists, or else it would be official - and it's not. -- serbiana - talk 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, until 1950. there was no talk about separate identity between Serbs and Montenegrins. Untill then those two people were often regarded as two apples from the same branch. As what I believe, untill then almost every Montenegrin also felt himself as a Serb, and spoke about his language as Serbian. Some sources that Montenegrin indepedence/language proponets find about existence of Montenegrin language (such as that in 19th century it was observed by some Serbian cultural worker that soon enough the diferences between Montenegrin and Serbian would become larger than Portugees and Spanish) are simply out of place, tendentious, ill-fated ... and what not. Since the creation of Socialist Republic of Montenegro, slowly started the creation of separate Montenegrin identity. That process was intensified in last eight years, and led to creation of new nation. The right of that nation is to call language as they see fit.
So, Montenegrin was NOT language, but I agree that soon enough it will have all political prerequisites to become officially recognized as one. Therefore I'm against the move. It was discussed earlier, it was even voted, and article stayed right here. It should not be moved.--RockyMM 12:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/jezik/jezik_main.htm

"The right of that nation is to call language as they see fit." - I absolutely agree, BUT Montenegro has officialy NOT declared Montenegrin as the official language, and it is still Serbian. For now, there is no such thing as the Montenegrin language. When it is recognized by the world, like Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, even Bosnian, I'll accept the word "language" after the word "Montenegrin". THIS IS NOT FUTURE WIKIPEDIA, NEITHER IS IT A POLITICAL BLOG, THERE IS NO OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL SOURCE THAT STATES MONTENEGRIN AS A LANGUAGE. Change the name NOW. -- serbiana - talk 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The language

Hehe. Montenegrin is a language, Boris. How many time do I have to tell you that. Personally Boris, what the hell is wrong with you? Didn't you ever read http://www.montenegro.org/language.html ? It'll show you that YOU ARE WRONG AND I WAS RIGHT!!! Look, the language was once a language but then Serbs (actually Vuk Stefanović Karadžić) changed it so it can match their own language, and other similar South Slavic languages. Even the alphabet was changed so it wouldn't include the old Montenegin letters: Ś, Ź, and 3. And if you've ever heard an old person speak Montenegrin (the old language before its reform), you'd see that it sounds different from Serbian, but I really doubt that many who still speak Montenegrin. Look Boris, I know more about Montenegro and everything about it than you do. So face it. Montenegrin was once a language and will be again when Montenegro proclaims it as their official language, which should be sometime either this year or early next year. Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, I'M AGAINST THE MOVE!!!!!!! (as stated above) Crna Gora ^{(Talk/Contribs/Edit Count)} 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The page you mentioned proves nothing. There are no written proofs of Montenegrin nor anybody mentioned an adjective Montenegrin in sence of a language EVER before 20th century. Any selfrespecting philologist would tell you that. Even if that is not good enough for you, same that "Montenegrin language" was spoken in Sandzak, and nobody from Sandzak would call himself a Montenegrin. Same language. Completly same. Peroid.
Then again, if that is the decision of the Montenegrin people, they can call language they speak any way they like, as soon some body of authority publishes some work on it.--RockyMM 10:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit war

Few notes before it escalates:

1. Western Serbia did use ijekavian dialect—it was the native dialect of Vuk Karadžić. See the map by Pavle Ivic. However, during the course of time, it received ekavian pronunciation by the influence of wider standard in Serbia, so it should be rightfully omitted from the article.
2. "is regarded as a unique example of tolerance in the region". By whom? Clear POV. We should report the events, not interpret them.
3. "but the number of teachers and students actually involved was very small indeed." According to Pobjeda, it included at least 500 Podgorica students. More can be found here – 900 students and 42 professors only in Nikšić do not constitute "a very small number". Duja 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a native dialect of Karadzic only because of his origins - his parents came from Bosnia and he learned to speak serbian language in the ijekavian dialect spoken there. Ilic' map is considered outdated and inaccurate by linguists today. Be that as it may, Western Serbia has no place in this article, as ijekavian is certainly not spoken in that region now.

I'm not so sure—children usually speak the language of their environment rather than their parents. Ivic's map is indeed outdated, and I removed the reference to Western Serbia. Duja 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV, nor interpretation, but a report on the sentiment of the general public in Montenegro (except some right-wing serbian ultranationalists - a pleaonasm, I know, but a well placed one), as well as regional media (Vjesnik is one reputable source) and the OSCE. If you consider the democraticaly elected government, the public, the media and the OSCE as invalid over the disconent of a few dozen ppl, then that is clearly a POV.

The number given - 900 students in Niksic turned out to be a media hoax. A few dozen joined the renegade teachers, but gave up the protest a week later. It IS a very small number indeed compared to the number of people emplyed in education in Montenegro - only 11 teachers + 2 deputy principles in NIksic decaded to persist and got sacked for not turning up on work and using children for political manipulation. That make it a borderline irrelevant info. I doubt it deserves mentioning in an encyclopaedia - do not confuse Wikipedia with an internet forum. Also, the article itslef claims: "This decision resulted in a dozen Serb teachers declaring a strike ...". Duja, your edits are a case of contradictio in adjecto.

In that case, you could give the references, like I did above. I also agree that the info is only borderline relevant. However, the affair was a rather big hussle at the time. However, you also appear confuse Wikipedia with an internet forum; if you say that "sentiment of the general public in Montenegro", refer to Vjesnik and OSCE, "media hoax" etc, you should also provide some evidence.

In case you wonder about my political stance on the issue: personally, I do think that "mother tongue" is a better compromise on the issue, as well as that the strike was largely a political manipulation with children. What I want is to get the facts straight and language neutral. Duja 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

It says over 22% when it should be below 22%. The full-scale figure's 21.53%, so... I guess that there was a bad calculation - it's less, not more. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The census was 3 years ago — if we could count it now, I'm positive that the percentage would be much closer, if not over, 50%. Duja 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[dz]

Um. Is that Cyrillic ZE being used for [dz] or is it EZH? Because if it's the latter, there's going to be trouble in Unicodeland. Evertype 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

If it is said that Vuk Karadzic wrote down the Serbian language, yet he comes from Montenegro doesn't it mean then Serbian is the same thing as Montenegrin and that calling the languages separate just like Bosnian and Croatian is just a political ploy by the ruling governments. I believe that all the languages are the same and should be classified as the same thing. The difference between Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin is the same as the difference in the English dialects between people from England, The Midwest of America, The East Coast of America, and the American South...its all English just this is all the same. --Happyman22 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Really??? :)

--82.117.194.34 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

YES. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Language Characteristics

Someone is trying really, really hard to show how the mentioned characteristics are used in other areas of former Yugoslavia. Noone is trying to deny that, however, that is not what the topic is about. The topic is about the Montenegrin language and its characteristics. So, please keep to the topic. BTW, noone is trying to invent a separate new language. Montenegrin is a new standard, not a new language. As far as I am concerned "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian" and "Montenegrin" have different meaning as adjectives only as different standards of the same language. They are synonyms if they refer to the language (Serbo-Croatian that is), so cool down a little and try to contribute to the knowledge base instead of cheap politics. Regards, Momisan 13:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your original sentence read "the distinctive characteristics are"... and not all of them were trully distinctive. What is really unique is the Zetan accent (not yet documented with details), ka:, and the sounds. Besides, we were talking about the dialect(s) it was based on, and their characteristics are, as with other dialects, more unique or more shared, from case to case. I'd just assume good faith in this case. Once the language gets a standard, perhaps something more distinctive can be written (but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Duja 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also assuming good faith. OK, as I understand the topic, the language spoken in Montenegro needs to be described. I'll use mathematical analogy (not really accurate but its close enough), as I believe you should be able to handle it: Think of a whole set of Sthokavian (and some Chakavian) characteristics as 3D space and the language in Montenegro as a 2D plane. It is the combination of characteristics that is unique, although a single characteristic might be shared with another dialect. So, lets enumerate them and see what comes out of it. I believe it is closer to the mark than a sweeping statement like "almost all other Serbian and Croatian dialects have it", which doesn't help anyone. Just to touch on the term "distinctive", which obviously wasn't that important as I didn't complain when it was removed, my understanding is that "distinctive" and "unique" are not synonyms, but, let's not get hung up on that.Finally, the term "Montenegrin" language, which is to some like putting a red flag in front of a bull, for now is simply a language spoken in Montenegro. No it doesn't have a standard, so what? Branko Radicevic didn't need a standard to write in Serbian in 19th century, did he? Regards, Momisan 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at anon's edits. Yes, you're right—while it should be mentioned where the feature is also encountered, it is also POV to insert "like in (pretty much every) neighboring dialect". There's no need for exaggeration. Duja 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against mentioning where else is the feature encountered as long as the information is precise (for example: "shto can also be heard in standard Croatian and x,y,z dialects, or around such and such city"). As long as it is in good faith, it is OK.Momisan 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Moved from the article:

• Three sounds that were left out of the Serbo-Croatian standard and alphabets, when they were created in the 19th century:[ç], [ʝ] and [ʣ]. The standard replaced the sound [ç] with the sj combination (sjedi, sjesti, sjekira, sjever, sjutra, kisjelo, pasje etc.). It is still widely used in the spoken language, even by the educated population. The standard replaced the sound [ʝ] with zj combination (izjelica, izjesti etc.) Nowadays, it is used in only few words. The sound [ʣ] is rarely used.

Sorry Momisan, but you'll have to back this up by citations. First, it makes little sense to talk about Serbo-Croatian standard in the 19th century; at best, we could talk about Vuk's, Daničić's, Gaj's etc. works on orthography. Second, you have to offer the proof that those letters existed in the "standard", i.e. were proposed by some prominent linguists of the time so they could be dropped at all. If the sole intention was to stress that those sounds/letters weren't even considered for inclusion, the paragraph above does not carry the message in an unambiguous manner, and should be rephrased. Duja 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. Obviously wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to say is that these sounds existed at the time Vuk was composing the cyrillic alphabet. For some reason, Vuk did not allocate separate letters for them, thus, wasn't consistent with his rule of "one sound - one letter". To me cases 'ś'->'sj" and 'ź'->'zj' look like a classical iotation. That is why I think 'kisjelo' isn't hyper-ijekavism. Some good citation on this is welcome. The sound [ʣ] is an interesting one. I could not think of any words in Montenegrin that use it,apart from some colloquialisms, however, many italian words have it (zero, zingara etc.). Perhaps it is an interesting leftover from the past.Momisan 02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Vuk didn't pronounce it as 'ś' himself? Off the top of my head, I assign the feature more to the Zeta dialect rather than Herzegovina/Dubrovnik speaches which Vuk had a significant contact with. You're right, it's a iotation, (but one which wasn't realized in the rest of shtokavian area, and thus left unnoticed by the standards in the wider sense of the word). I'd certainly qualify kisjelo as a "hyper-ijekavism" regardless of whether it's noted as "kisjelo" or "kiśelo"; it's "kiselo" elsewhere (d'uh, I don't have an etymological dictionary to see whether there really was a jat). Duja 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Vuk didn't pronounce ś himself, I don't know, but this sound actually is one of the characteristics of the East-Herzegovina dialect (it's present in speeches of this dialect in Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bosnia, Krajina, and Western Serbia, and I'm not sure about Dubrovnik). But it is quite possible that there was no ś in Trsic speech (Vuk's birthplace), since it is the northest part of East-Herzegovina dialect, close to Shumadija ekavian dialects and Eastern Bosnian šćakavian dialects, which do not feature ś. This makes sense. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I've forgotten to say this: all the other ijekavian speeches of Central South Slavonic diasystem (aka Serbo-Croatian language) have kiselo. Kisjelo is only used in Montenegro, but not always even there. There are Montenegrin dialects that use kiselo, too. And pasje has nothing to do with yat, as well. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like its all in the area of speculation. While it is possible that Vuk didn't know about the sounds, I wouldn't underestimate his work to that extent. He travelled widely through Montenegro, also don't forget that he "found" sound 'h' around Dubrovnik area. Anyway, it is all history now. As for pasje, in Montenegro, it is pronounced as paśe. 's'+'i', isn't that an iotation? It is very easy to make a mistake if one doesn't have 'ś' in mind. Now, wait a second... pasje, that is ijekavian, even for the Serbian standard, isn't it?:-)Momisan 00:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood you well, but pasje is both ekavian and ijekavian; that -je doesn't stem from a jat, as many other cases. Ekavians don't say "ebati" :-). Duja 08:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. You might be right :-)Momisan 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not every ś originates from s + short yat which is replaced with je. This sound forms whenever s or š comes before j, which doesn't always come from yat. -je is an ending for collective nouns, and is equal for both Ijekavian and Ekavian: both standards have pasje, poprsje, Podunavlje (l + je > lje), lišće (list + je > lisće [tj : ć] > lišće [sć : šć]), žbunje (n + je > nje), grožđe (grozd + je > grozđe [dj : đ] > grožđe [zđ : žđ]). As you can see, other iotated sounds appear, not only ś (lj, nj, ć, and đ). With no yat at all! :) --Djordje D. Bozovic

That was informative. Credit where credit is due:)Momisan 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

I'd say that the more appropriate term would be a "variant" or "variety" of Serbian language (for those who think so). Dialect is not a sociolinguistic concept. It refers mainly to various vernaculars and idioms. Mir Harven 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any relevance whatsoever ?

Here is "Gorski vijenac", original printing: http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~mr99164/tekstovi/gv.html Of course, because he didn't have grapheme /j/, Njegoš writes "long" yat as "ie", and "short" as, well, Roman ě. So, "cijelo djelo" would be "cielo dělo". Any relevance re yat pronunciation (bisyllabic, diphtong) ? Mir Harven 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The bisyllabic ronunciation of long yat differs Montenegrin language from Croatian and Bosnian, which have diphtongal long yat. It's relevant because all these three languages are based on shtokavian ijekavian standard, but as you see there are some differences between Montenegrin ijekavian and Croatian ijekavian. Yat is bisyllabic when long (when forming the group ije) in most Serbian Ijekavian dialects, unlike Croatian, which is diphtongal. For example, Croatian svijet is accented on the vowel e and pronounced almost like it's written svjet (svⁱjêt) - but with a long e, not like dialectal and archaic svjet = savjet, which has short e - since the entire ije group in svijet is a dyphtong, not two different syllables (and no words in Croatian, except some loans from other languages, could be accented on the final syllable). In Serbian Ijekavian, svijet is accented on i (svìjet), since ije group here is considered two syllables (i and je); and same goes for Serbian regarding the final syllable of a word. Njegos used yat only when it's pronounced je (short, so one letter for one syllable), and when it was two syllables - ije - he wrote them using the two letters - ie - following the bisyllabic pronunciation used by the Montenegrins and other ijekavian-speaking Serbs. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful about "most Serbian Ijekavian dialects". I don't think (but I'm open to suggestions) that ije is bisyllabic in Krajina, Lika and Slavonia, which account for majority of ijekavian Serbian speakers. Yes, the standard says so, but it has an inherent bias by Vuk's heritage. I'm born and raised in central Posavina, and I certainly pronounce it as diphthongal. Duja 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly bisyllabic in East-Herzegovina dialect, and this ijekavian dialect covers the greatest territory - including Lika, Kordun and Banija, and most of the other parts of Krajina (it is also called Herzegovina-Krajina dialect), but in Slavonia, I agree, it's probably diphtongal. I'm born and today I live in Užice region, where the long yat, the ije group, is very clearly bisyllabic. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overgeneralizing; "East Herzegovina dialect" (the term I personally deem both stretched and archaic, but let's put that aside) is hardly a rock-solid concept with well-defined boundaries. As you said yourself in the section above, /ś/ is a characteristic only of its southeasternmost part. I maintain that this is also the case with bisyllabic/diphthongal ije (albeit the isogloss is not the same as with /ś/), namely that it's diphthongal also with majority of Krajina speakers. Duja 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something I've noticed a long time ago. There is a myth (especially among Croatian dialectologists) that "Western Serbs" not only pronounce, but impeccably distinguish between long and short yat. From my experience, Serbs from Croatia and major part of Bosnia, generally pronounce diphtongal yat, and those near Montenegro or Western Serbia (Easternmost Herzegovina, Podrinje, Sandžak,..) are "bisyllabic". Maybe it's an unfair test, but I've frequently encountered Serbs from BH & Hr writing in the "Škarić manner" (always -je-). So I guess the correct inscription of -ije- and -je- has more to do with education than with "natural speech". This is one example (the content is irrelevant, just look for yat reflexes among Serbian commentators): http://www.glassrpske.com/cyrl/?vijest=2705&PHPSESSID=070a45874ac5881e5a16eb42893c4a5e "O Mesicu ne treba trositi rjeci. Obican lupez i beskicmenjak kojem bi i Makijaveli zavidio na beskrupuloznosti i bestidu. Tihic je malo gluplja verzija Mesica, ocigledno nedorasla Silajdzicu. To njegovo spominjanje ustava je smjesno....etc. On the other hand, some comments correctly distinguish between -ije- and -je-. Hmmmm...Mir Harven 14:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Duja 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a short comment from me. I am glad we are starting to talk more about the language and less about politics, some interesting facts are starting to come out.Momisan 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the correct inscription of -ije- and -je- has more to do with education than with "natural speech".

Well, I wouldn't say so. In Western Serbia, people are educated in Ekavian, but when it comes to speaking the traditional language, the long yat gets clearly bisyllabic. And such "bisyllabic Ijekavian" is here certainly the natural speech, nothing to do with education. And I have also noticed that they sometimes regularly put accent on i from the ije group - not only when the word has just these two syllables (like svijet or cvijet), but in other words as well, where it is not necessary because of the final syllable - like dijete, which becomes dijete in pronunciation. When speaking with Montenegrins, I have noticed that they put accent on i of the ije group much more often - I'd say almost always! --Djordje D. Bozovic 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust you, but we didn't refer to Western Serbia, but rather to Bosnia (region), especially Bosanska Krajina and Croatia. I'd say that i in "ije" is (almost) never stressed.
The phenomenon is perhaps most easily analysed in folk songs. Few quick examples: ko to pa·li svije·će i po krč·mi še·će, to je lije·pa Ma·ra... (Nedeljko Bilkić); umrije·ću od bo·la, umrije·ću od bo·la... (Baja Mali Knindža), Dru·ga·ri·ce po·sa·dimo cvije·će (Neda Ukraden). That's the reason why many ijekavian songs are fairly easily "ekavised"; however, with Montenegrin and Herzegovinian decasyllable, ekavization would completely destroy the meter. Duja 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bozovicu, you omitted one crucial piece of information. People living in the Western Serbia are mostly migrants from Montenegro, as your surname itself suggests.Momisan 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid my family actually descends from Herzegovina. :) My ancestors actually were the Kulićs of Nevesinje, but one of them, named Božo Kulić, was a hajduk here at Zlatibor, and so all his descendants here took the surname Božović after him. However, despite my family history, it is true that many families here have migrated from present-day Montenegro, but certainly not all of them, and certainly not even the most of them. The most families here are actually migrants from Herzegovina, which is the main reason why people from Užice region are everywhere known as Ere (singular Hero or Ero is short from Hercegovac, which is Serbo-Croatian for inhabitant of Herzegovina or a man from Herzegovina). Nevertheless, today Ere usually does not refer to people of Herzegovina, but of Užice region in Western Serbia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where Era comes from. Still, what you said gives us some idea where is, shall we say, the epicentre of linguistic characteristics we are talking about. My understanding is that many people that lived in Military Frontier in Croatia, before the last war, also came from the same regions as refugees. Momisan 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, I would still say that there was the bisyllabic long yat in Krajina speech (not Bosnian Krajina, but Military Frontier in Croatia). --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed section

Please, add references about: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. AFAIK, kisjelo doesn't have jat, but it is like in words medjed and sjutra other kind of characteristics of Montenegrin dialects. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. sto is widely used in Serbian dialects, too. sta is used only when this pronoun is used to make a question (i.e., "ono sto sam radio", "sto( )god si namerio" etc.). So, add some relevant references about your claims. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
3. supine and infinitive are different forms. So, claim like "The verbs in infinitive end in 't', like in "pjevat"." is nonsens. Also, you added present form in "Serbian variant" (pjevas is present, pjevati is infinitve). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if you want to make this article well, please, do not behave like a POV pusher and use some linguistic literature instead. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. AFAIK too, kisjelo didn't have a jat, but it is apparently perceived as having one. That classifies it as a "hyper-ijekavism". Here's an interpretation: "...jer je u ovoj rijeci jos od praslovenskog doba postojao dubletizam izvornog e i jata. Ipak nece biti opravdano ovaj lik uvoditi u standardni izraz jer ...". While we don't have an official definition of "hyper-ijekavism", I'd say that kisjelo certainly classifies as one, under an ad-hoc definition of "having a reflex of jat where the original jat disappeared, didn't exist, or reflexed in a different way elsewhere".
2. Who said that što is not a Serbian form? I ammended the article to clearly say that što is used for interrogative form. In Serbia and Bosnia, što is used only as relative pronoun, šta being used for interrogative
3. The reference to supine was inserted by yourself. I admit it was the first time I heard about it. I fixed the spelling and linked, but, if Supine article is to be trusted, supine is a form of verbal noun rather than a pure synonym for infinitive. Since apparently we're talking about the use and form of classical infinitive, I think it's better and clearer to state that "the infinitive lacks the terminal 'i'" than to involve the fairly obscure concept of supine. The concept is formalized in Slovenian, but I don't think it applies to Shtokavian as-is.

Duja 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1. As I said earlier, kisjelo comes from kiśelo. When looked from that prospective, it is all crystal clear. It is a hyper-iotation, in my opinion.
2. Agree with Duja. Don't understand where the problem is.
3. For me, concept of supine is clear and it is actually an accurate description of the way Montenegrin use the infinitive. It is a verbal noun as in "Oli pjevat, hajdemo igrat etc." Serbians (at least in Serbia) don't tend to use infinitive in this manner much, ""Hajdemo da igramo" is more common. Isn't this Supine? As for infinitive, it is a broader term, and it does terminate in 't'. That is why I think that both supine and infinitive should be mentioned.

Momisan 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Momisan, you got it the wrong way round (or at least, that's how you expressed yourself). "kiśelo" comes from "kisjelo" (via iotation), which in turn comes from old Slavic "kisĕl" (with jat), which is an alternate form of "kisel". That later form apparently was prevailing elsewhere, and yielded "kiselo" elsewhere.--Accepted.Momisan 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
2. .
3. You're right, I didn't think about "Oli pjevat" in this way. However, Serbian form "hoćeš li da pjevamo" is not infinitive—some linguists describe it as "subjunctive" while others refer to it as present. Both pure-infinitive form ("hoćeš li pjevati?") and the subjunctive form are acceptable, but I'd guess that the subjunctive would prevail in Serbia while infinitive/supine in the West. Duja 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About verb forms for Momisan: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. "pjevati" -- infinitive --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2. "pjevat" -- supine --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
3. "da pjevas" -- subjunctive/present --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed {{disputed}} tag because (1) Duja found source for jat in kisjelo; (2) I think that I realized that Momisan didn't know what supine is; (3) Duja found right construction fo sto/sta problem. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored {{disputed}} tag. If your intention is to get to the bottom of "supine" question, why don't you give us your explanation. What is the difference between supine and infinitive, and why do you think pjevat is supine, not infinitive? The wiki page on infinitive for slavic languages mentions that in fact most of the slavic languages have infinitives ending in 't' or 'ć'.Momisan 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on supine clearly says that it is a verbal noun. (In grammar, a supine is a form of verbal noun used in some languages...; ...can only be used in the accusative and ablative...; ...often misnamed "infinitive", though it is not such...). "Pjevat" is not a verbal noun - it's a verb. In Serbo-Croatian we refer to it as krnji infinitiv, which can be translated as "shorter infinitive", for example. It is a kind of the infinitive (in Montenegrin it is the only existing infinitive form itself), and not a different grammatical category, such as supine. I don't see why you need to 'westernize' our grammar when not necessary (and this includes the term "subjunctive" for da + present construction, too - no relevant Serbian linguist has ever refered to it as subjunctive). --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the supine article and it's still not clear to me whether the concept is unambiguously applicable outside of Latin. Even if it is, it's probably better to stick to the languages where it's officially accepted as such; usage described in Slovenian verbs is quite similar to Serbo-Croatian, but I'd be cautious to apply it here; as you said, it would probably be better to remove it altogether.
As for the Serbian "subjunctive" issue, I confess to spreading the (mis)conception around Wikipedia. It is quite true that it's seldom if ever referred to as "subjunctive" among Serbian linguists, but I can't help but notice the obvious similarity to the definition of subjunctive, as well as apparent economy of using single word to ubiquitous and ambiguous "modal form of present" or like. Heck, verbs in sentences such as "ja ću da idem", "ja bih da vidim" or "da se nosiš u..." are clearly not indicative mood, and are so specific for most Serbian speeches (excluding Western ones, to an extent) (as well as Bulgarian and Macedonian, and other Balkansprachbund languages) that they desperately need some kind of unambiguous terminology, even if stretched one. Duja 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For further reading: see Balkansprachbund#Avoidance of infinitive and Balkansprachbund#Bare subjunctive constructions. Duja 13:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, your examples are not the best. All the three of them only partly fit this category. Here's how:

"ja cu da idem" - future is formed by the present tense of verb ht(j)eti (usually the short form) and the infinitive. Thus, both Eastern and Western forms would be "ja cu ici". "ja cu da idem" is used in Torlakian dialect, from where it came to common speech in Serbia, but still the use of infinitive prevails in making the statements about future. "Oli pjevat" is the future form, too (just, it's interrogative). And that's why most Serbians would rather say "Hoces li pevati" and not "Hoces li da pevas", which is rather Torlakian, and although it's getting more used lately, it's still at some extent iliteral. Nevertheless, "Hoces li da pevas?" is used in Serbia just like that, as a sentence itself (the sentence of intention - see below), because then it's not the future, but two separated verbal forms (present and da + present construction), and still the infinitive is allowed, too. However, when used as future, for example "Hoces li pevati sutra na priredbi?" infinitive is more normal to appear. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"ja bih da vidim" - what would you say that the 'Western' form is? "ja bih vidio"? "ja bih volio vidjeti"? No, all these three forms are equal in both Eastern and Western common speeches; the first one being used for present, the second for past, and the third in poetry and literature when some literary style is needed. The only possible way to escape using "ja bih da vidim" in Western form is to use "ja bih vidio" for both present and past, which is not necessary. This is the potential mode, and is different from what we discuss. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"da se nosis" - this phrase certainly doesn't replace the imperative "nosi se" in Serbia; it is rather short of "voleo bih da se nosis" (which is the same as the example described above), "zelim da se nosis", etc. Yet, there are some cases when "da se nosis" entirely replace the imperative - but only in Torlakian dialect. In other speeches of Serbia imperative is well preserved and not replaced with da + present. So, this was not a good example, especially because it has nothing to do with the infinitive at all, and that was the point. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A fine example of replacing the infinitive with da + present construction in Serbia would be "idem p(j)evati" vs. "idem da pevam". Here you can ask "što/šta ides raditi?", and thus the infinitive or the da + present construction, roughly spoken, means the object of the sentence. Of course, a verb cannot be an object, only nouns can. It makes us think that this actually may be the gerund or supine. But it is uncorrect to say that Montenegrin "pjevat" is supine, and "pjevati" is not. They both (pjevat and pjevati) are infinitives, but they can be described as supines (both of them) when used in indirect object (actually, when used in the sentences of intention - nam(j)erne or finalne recenice in Serbo-Croatian). --Djordje D. Bozovic

So, only in the sentences of intention the Western speeches use strictly infinitive, while the Eastern use both infinitive and da + present. In the easternmost part of Shtokavian area - in Torlakian dialects - infinitive is regularly replaced with da + present. In other dialects of Serbia both infinitive and da + present are allowed and used, but in the West only the infinitive is used. Regarding the sentences of intention only! In other cases, da + present can be used even in the West, and in Montenegro as well. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was digressing from the initial subject (and now you're digressing even further :-) ). My point was not that the "subjunctive/present" (for lack of a better word) replaces only the infinitive, but that it can also extend into the future (ja ću ići), conditional (htio bih vidjeti), and imperative (nosi se...) – the bracketed constructions are likely ones in spoken Croatian, Bosnian, and "Western Serbian" (in the wide sense of the latter). In other words, the "present" is not limited to indicative but crosses well into other moods and tenses. While I concur with most of your elaboration above, I'd also add that those "da-constructs" are far more widespread than in Torlakian (where they're used pretty exclusively), and affect a greater part of the Serbian and to an extent Bosnian vernaculars. While linguistic purists might raise an eyebrow in disgust on those, the fact is that they're fairly well present in colloquial speeches. Your points about "sentences of intention" (I'd say, modal verbs in general, although in a wider sense than in English) are appreciated.
I also agree with your analysis of supine vs. infinitive. Duja 15:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bozovicu, I have the feeling this is the definitive text on supine:-) To summarise my understanding: infinitive can be seen as supine, in the sentences of intention only. The infinitive in Montenegrin always ends in 't'. Momisan 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was a bit pushy removing the "disputed" marker! Don't want to split ends here,however, just to highlight that the used terminology can be seen as Serbo-centric. krnji infinitiv or short infinitive, implicitly suggests that it is incomplete, the piece is missing ... As I ponted out before, most other Slavic languages in fact have the same form of infinitive as Montenegrin. It is in fact Serbo-Croatian that has one letter too many ('i'). From the point of view of Serbo-Croatian, it might be short version, but, not from the wider point of view (English). Therefore, I ask for the term short-version to be removed and just state that infinitive ends in 't', like how it was at the beginning. Momisan 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I dislike having big "disputed" tags about really minor issues; I think that "short infinitive" vs. "ends in 't'" is splitting hairs—you were certainly welcome to revert the expression back if you had found it inappropriate. This is a free encyclopedia, you know :-). Besides, I (consciously or not) added the quotes around "short", indicating it's a description rather than a "mutilation of the 'right thing'". After all, this phenomenon of infinitive shortening is so common all around (esp. in West) that it probably was very close to be included in standards (I have no sources to back that up, though). Duja 09:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

Ajmo ovako... Potrosim uvek enormno vreme pokusavajuci sklopit ;) recenice na engleskom. Ovo ovde nije neka posebno problematicna stvar (u ovom tekstu ima problematicnijih, kao sto je poistovecivanje crnogorskog jezika i dijalekata koji se govore u Crnoj Gori), a cini mi se da Momisan drzi gard bez preterane potrebe... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dakle, supin je "kratki infinitiv". Makar kad je rec o slovenskim jezicima. Takav je postojao jos u zajednickom slovenskom i nije u dijalektima u Crnoj Gori (i drugim dijelektima) to stiglo s Marsa, nego upravo kao ostatak te osobine. Mislim da se mozete o supinu uputiti u prvoj knjizi Staroslovenski jezik koju je napisao (neki) Nikolic (zaboravio sam mu ime). Dakle, prihvatljivo je napisati nesto u smislu "supin (kratki infinitiv)", mada je i to "kratki infinitiv" malo besmisleno jer vec postoji oblik koji je druga kategorija (usput, i infinitiv je glagolska imenica). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugo, Momisane, pokusaj da podrazumevas dobru volju. Ako pogledas Dujine i moje izmene, verujem da ces moci zakljuciti da nemamo nista protiv politicke volje dela Crnogoraca da svoj jezik nazivaju crnogorskim. Nemamo nista ni protiv toga da se naznace razlike medju dijalektima i sl. Problem je i u tome sto ovaj clanak uredjujete vas dvojica Crnogoraca koji niste lingvisticki obrazovani (ti i CrnaGora, kako mi se cini). Onda stvarno imam odbojnost prema prihvatanju "lingvistickih fakata" koje sami unosite; a, eto, ume da se desi da u tome i previdim neku stvarnu cinjenicu koju ste uneli. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dakle, hajde da razresimo te stvari. Postoji gomila literature i na Internetu i mozemo ovaj clanak napraviti vrlo valjanim. Licno mislim da treba napraviti i clanke kao sto su zetsko-sjenicki dijalekat i istocnohercegovacki dijalekat, u kojim bismo opisali detaljno osobine dijalekata. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Usput, licno smatram da je solidno besmisleno trazenje posebnog lingvistickog identiteta na prostoru novostokavskih normi. Identiteti su kulturni i politicki i jedino je smisleno njih isticati. Ljudi nam se smeju kada shvate o kakvim razlikama pricamo :) Dakle, crnogorski jezik jeste politicka realnost (kao i srpski, hrvatski i bosanski), ali su lingvisticke razlike medju svim standardnim jezicima smesne. Uz to, istocnohercegovacki dijalekat, onaj kojim se govori u mozda pola Crne Gore predstavlja osnovicu svih novostokavskih standardnih jezika. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragi moj prijatelju, odgovoricu za tebe na "Srpskom" :-) Ono sto se tebi cini kao gard je jednostavno pogled iz Crnogorske perspektive. Ja razumijem da mozda imas problema da ga shvatis ili prihvatis, medjutim, ti najvjerovatnije nijesi morao od malih nogu da korigujes svoj maternji jezik da bi pisao "knjizevnim" jezikom, kao sto to moraju Crnogorci. Kako bi se ti osjecao da ti od sad neko nametne da je sklopit knjizevni a sklopiti nekakav arhaizam? Svaki put kad izgovoris ono sklopit, nesto te zacne medju rebra... E, tako je nama, prijatelju, svaki dan. Interesuje me dali bi ti i onda razlike izgledale smijesno. Osim mene i Crne Gore, ovdje ne vidim ljude kojima je Crnogorski maternji. Znaci, samo nas dvojica mozemo ovom clanku da donesemo taj kvalitet. Sto se tice lingvistickog obrazovanja, niko, bar ne ja, tvrdi da smo profesionalni lingvisti, medjutim ja vjerujem da je solidno opste obrazovanje sasvim dovoljno da bi se moglo saradjivati sa nama. Zbog toga su neophodni i ljudi poput Bozovica i Duje da bi se tekst na kraju profesionalno uoblikovao. Kad bi se uredjivanje teksta ostavilo samo tebi, Bozovicu ili Duji, izgubila bi se posebnost, jer je vi iz vase perspektive i ne mozete vidjeti. Zato ja ne vidim u ovom trenutku jednu osobu koja bi objedinila sve neophodne sastojke za dobar tekst. Saradnja je neophodna. Momisan 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Znaci, samo nas dvojica mozemo ovom clanku da donesemo taj kvalitet.

Netačno. Wikipedija je delo zajedničkog rada. Niko nema posebno pravo u odnosu na nekog drugog da donosi sud o kvalitetu članka. Saradnja je svakako neophodna, ali ne sme doći do tzv. POV-a. Još je gore kada je članak pola sa jednim pogledom, a pola sa drugim pogledom na istu stvar. Idealni članak bi trebalo da ima neutralan stav.

• Sto se tice lingvistickog obrazovanja, niko, bar ne ja, tvrdi da smo profesionalni lingvisti, medjutim ja vjerujem da je solidno opste obrazovanje sasvim dovoljno da bi se moglo saradjivati sa nama.

Tačno. Naravno da možete unositi sve što vam padne na pamet u članak, ali ovom članku su potrebni EKSPERTI. Zato se uzdržavam od bilo kakvih unosa u članak. Jedino možeš videti da sam dosta davno unosio neke izmene, uglavnom ispravljajući očigledne greške i štiteći članak da bude a) neutralan, b) razumljiv i laiku (mmiloshe, što se očekuje od enciklopedijskog članka). Isto tako svako ko nije ekspert svaki svoj unos mora da triput da vaga pre nego što ga unese u članak.

Konačno, kada unosiš izmenu u članak na engleskoj Wikipediji, tačnije na bilo kojoj Wikipediji, ostavi po strani sve osećaje. Članak i treba da bude suvoparan. Ako unosiš izmene, a nešto te žacka u rebrima, najverovatnije će i čitaoca nešto da žacne, možda na drugi način. Mora se misliti i na to.

Isto tako mislim da je ovom članku potrebno jedno detaljno iščitavanje, jer mislim da se pomalo stilski izgubio, odnosno da stil izlaganja varira kroz članak.RockyMM 12:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vidim ima i posmatraca... Na ovakve komentare necu trositi(zac!) rijeci.Momisan 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Ovde postoje dva momenta (mislim na tvoj prvi odgovor). Pocecu od drugog: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Niko ne kaze da ovde vi trebate biti iskljuceni iz rada na clanku. Stavise, mislim da sam i gore rekao da je vrlo korisno imati nekog ko stvari gleda iznutra i ko ima pristupa materijalu koji nam moze clanak napraviti boljim. Dakle, niko ne dovodi u pitanje vase ucesce. Samo sam ti naznacio da valja podrazumevati dobru volju. Posto sam video da si u gardu misleci da zelim da objasnjavam "kako je crnogorski zapravo srpski". (Usput, podrazumevanje da jedan jezik nesto drugo je izuzetno problematicna kategorija. Svako ima pravo na svoj politicko-jezicki identitet.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Prva stvar se tice onog sto osecas kao svoju ugrozenost standradnim jezikom. Ufff... I ja sam se osecao ugrozenim standardnim jezikom zato sto je jednom Beogradjaninu misaona imenica da razlikuje kratke akcente, kao i da ustanovi gde se nalaze postakcenatske duzine. Ako si iz istocnohercegovackog govornog podrucja, tu si u znatnoj prednosti u odnosu na mene. Imaj, takodje, na umu da su mnogi ljudi i po Srbiji i po Hrvatskoj i danas izlozeni jos vecoj jezickoj represiji jer se njihovi dijalekti, vrlo razliciti od standardnih jezika, smatraju seljackim, nizim, smesnim. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Poenta je ovde da su ljudi koji se bave jezickom politikom skloni da preko jezicki hiperkorektnih osoba maltretiraju svakog ko ne govori kako treba. To je jedan oblik represije koji nikako nije valjan i iz koga proizilazi mnogo losih osecanja. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mogao bih o ovome duze, ali bih se vratio na clanak: ako postoje problemi ili nesuglasice oko nekih stvari u clanku, hajd da to resimo podrazumevajuci dobru volju druge strane. Uvek se mozemo razjasniti na nekoj od novostokavskih normi ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Drago mi je da smo se slozili. Momisan 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Infinitiv može imati osobine imenice, npr. Jako je želio kupiti tu knjigu (objekat), Razmisliti je preporučljivo (subjekat), ali to ne znači da je infinitiv imenica. To je glagol, bez obzira što se može upotrijebiti kao imenica. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I dalje se ne slažem da se crnogorsko pjevat spram standardnog pjevati može nazvati supinom. Iako su u praslovenskom postojali dvojaki oblici - infinitiv s dužim i supin s kraćim nastavkom, u onome što pretenduje da bude standardni crnogorski postoji samo jedan oblik - pjevat, učit, radit, moć - i on je tu infinitiv. U crnogorskom je to infinitiv (takav je, to je jedini oblik infinitiva), a zvati ga supinom znači da postoji i oblik infinitiva sa dužim nastavkom (pjevati, moći), za koji je oblik tipa pjevat i moć supin. A to znači da je crnogorski zapravo dijalekat onog jezika u kome je standardni infinitiv s nastavcima -ti i -ći, tj. srpskog ili hrvatskog, a to je POV. Kada biste otvorili gramatiku crnogorskog jezika, za koju nisam siguran da li je još uvijek odštampana, ne biste našli da su glagolski oblici pjevat i moć supini, već infinitivi. Takav je crnogorski infinitiv. A pjevat je supin sa srpske ili hrvatske tačke gledišta. Sa crnogorske, to je takav i jedini - infinitiv. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

E, da. To za supin koji je infinitiv... Stoji to sto govoris i ako u nekom buducem crnogorskom standardu ne postoji oblik na "-ti", onda ce svakkao supin iz standardnog srpskog/hrvatskog/bosanskog biti infinitiv. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali, ovo je malo slozeniji problem. Pre svega, zato sto smo, prema pravilima Vikipedije, poprilicno ograniceni u konstatacijama vezanim za crnogorski jezik: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Mozemo konstatovati da je crnogorski jezik odraz politicke volje oko 100.000 ljudi. U tom smilu, kao politicki entitet (kao i ono sto nazivamo "srpskim", "hrvatskim", "engleskim", "nemackim" itd.) -- postoji. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Ne mozemo konstatovati da standard postoji. Nikceviceva standardizacija nije ono sto institucije CG koriste kada referisu na "crnogorski jezik" ili "crnogorsku verziju". Ako idemo prema toj praksi, crnogorski jezik je isto sto i srpski ijekavski standard + nekoliko razlicitih reci. Stavise, mnogi dijalektizmi koje ovde opisujemo nisu standardni ni u takvom crnogorskom jeziku. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

E, sad. U odnosu na to jedini referentni sistem u odnosu na koji se poredi ono sto ovde opisujemo jeste srpska standardna ijekavica. A u srpskoj standardnoj ijekavici postoje i supin i infinitiv. U tom smislu se moze konstatovati nesto u smislu "da se u govorima Crne Gore standardni supin koristi mesto infinitiva, tj. da je standardni oblik supina zapravo infinitiv". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ostaje nam jos i potpuno neobradjena dijalektologija uopste svih stokavskih dijalekata. Ono sto je do sada obradjeno je vrlo slabo. Drugim recima, u ovom clanku bi trebalo opisivati zametak novog standarda, a ne dijalektaske osobine. Jer, i "govornik srpskog" i "govornik crnogorskog" u npr. Herceg Novom govore istocnohercegovackim dijalektom :) Isto tako i za zetsko-juznosandzacki... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ukupno, na neistrazenom smo terenu, a ovde se ne smemo koristiti originalnim istrazivanjima. I jos treba razgraniciti kategorije... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mada se slažem sa većim dijelom onog što si rekao, ne vidim da si dao neke konkretne smjernice kuda misliš da članak treba da ide (osim onih kuda ne treba da ide). Mogu se složiti da definicija Crnogorskog jezika "ne konvergira" ka Nikčevićevim rješenjima (ali pošto Wikipedija nije kristalna kugla, to se ne može reći u članku). Ne znam ni kako možemo opisati "zametak novog standarda" kad se, koliko mi je poznato, niko (osim prilično izolovanog Nikčevića) ozbiljno ne bavi pokušajima standardizacije; udžbenici koji se koriste su (pretpostavljam) stari, "Srpski", ili u najbolju ruku prepisani na "Srpski ili Crnogorski". Ono što izgleda kao dominantan trend (a što sam i pokušao da kažem u nedavnom doprinosu, pogledaj početak "Language politics" sekcije kao i mišljenja nekih javnih radnika) je da se Crnogorski jezik prosto proglasi ravnopravnim imenom zajedničkog jezika (formerly known as Serbo-Croatian), (donekle amortizujući pritisak na čisto "Srpski" karakter istog), dok bi se kao referenca standardnog jezika koristili pravopisi i gramatike koji su važili i do tad.

Ipak, mislim da dijalektološke karakteristike treba da se nadju u članku, (iako su daleko od savršenih), makar i imale tangencijalni uticaj na primarno političko pitanje. Ako ni zbog čeg drugog, ono zato što jedino one mogu da budu korektno citirane; drugi razlog je što ilustruju da ipak postoji nekakva osnova za lingvističku debatu (koju Nikčević, doduše, tjera do priličnih ekstrema.) Duja 11:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ajde da malo stvari okrenemo naopacke. Pretpostavite da ste slucajan citalac i dosli ste na ovu stranicu da biste nasli informacije o Crnogorskom jeziku. Citalac hoce da sazna sto je to sto ga cini posebnim, karakteristike, mozda i poneki primjer. Ne vjerujem da ga posebno zanima trenutni status rada na donosenju standarda. Ocito je da trenutno postoji znatna razlika izmedju govornog i knjizevnog. Kad govorimo o knjizevnom jeziku, moze da se prihvati teza da je to samo jos jedno ime za Srpsko-Hrvatski, bar dok se ne donese novi standard. Medjutim, kad se govori o govornom jeziku, dijalektoloske karakteristike su tu da objasne stvarno stanje na terenu. Razlika je istodobno i objasnjenje zasto se trazi novi standard. Mislim da se svi slazemo da je razgovor mnogo produktivniji, i strana informativnija, kad su karakteristike "na stolu". Inace, ima ih jos, naravno. Stay tuned :-)Momisan 12:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dujo, otprilike mi je sve to na pameti i treba mozda definisati prvo kako pristupiti temi. I to u smislu laganog osmisljavanja celog clanka (hajd da vidimo sta to i kako treba da opise) dok se ovaj postojeci sredjuje i prilagodjava... Uzmimo, "clanak treba da sadrzi te, te i te sekcije", "imamo te, te i te informacije relevantne za clanak", "ovo, ovo i ovo mozemo da konstatujemo a ono, ono i ono ne mozemo" i sl. (bolje na engleskom da konstruisemo sve to sa razjasnjenjima na nasim jezicima). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Momisane, problem je u tome sto politicki entitet ne govori puno o govornicima dijalekata. Ne mozes reci nekom ko se izjasnjava da govori srpskim da je njegov dijalekat "politicki deo crnogorskog jezika". A sve te osobine pripadaju i jednima i drugima. Dakle, govorni jezik je crnogorski za one koji kazu da govore crnogorskim, a srpski je za one koji kazu da je srpski. To jeste problem ovog clanka (za razliku od supina). Jedina zajednicka odrednica za sve to je zetsko-juznosandzacki dijalekat, odnosno istocnohercegovacki dijalekat. Standardni jezik se moze opisivati tek u odnosu na ono kakvim je definisan (u ovom slucaju vrlo vrlo slican srpskoj ijekavici), a dijalekti nista ne govore o entitetu zvanom crnogorski jezik (kao sto ni sumadijsko-vojvodjanski dijalekat ne govori nista o entitetu zvanom srpski jezik). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"govorni jezik je crnogorski za one koji kazu da govore crnogorskim, a srpski je za one koji kazu da je srpski. To jeste problem ovog clanka ". Ponekad mislim da je najlakse nacrtati dijagram :-) Naslov clanka je "Crnogorski jezik" i taj termin je jednoznacan (dobro, dvoznacan jer se trenutno odnosi na dva dijalekta). Clanak jednostavno treba da detaljnije obradi znacenje tog termina, tj jezicke karakteristike. Tacka. Tvoje polaziste je sa druge strane, od jezika, i onda se konstatuje da taj jezik ima dva imena. Kad bi se taj pristup usvojio, onda bi ime clanka trebalo promijeniti u "Language spoken in Montenegro". Inace, primijetio sam da se ista argumentacija koristi za clanak "Montenegrins". Medjutim, ukoliko se odlucimo za "Language spoken in Montenegro", to ne znaci da "Montenegrin Language" vise nije potreban. Kao sto Bozovic nedje rece, oko 100 000 ljudi koristi taj termin i to se ne moze ignorisati. Moj prijedlog je, dva clanka, inace nastaje zabuna, nadam se nenamjerna. Momisan 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bilo kako bilo-do normativnih priručnika, bar bosanske razine, ne može se skoro ništa reći o posebnom standardnom jeziku (nevažne su promjene ovoga ili onoga tipa- samo preimenovanje srpskog (i)jekavskog u crnogorski bilo bi dostatno). Ostaje ipak nekoliko ovlašnih primjedaba:

a) supin može postati relevantan jedino u standardizaciji. Ovako je marginalna pojava lokalnih govora

b) nazivi za dijalekte (hercegovački, istočnohercegovački) produkt su turske politike i njihova imenovanja lokalnih područja. Ako se novoštokavski-ijekavski i tretira kao 1 dijelekt, možda je primjerenije ime "crnogorski". Ne zaboravimo da je spajanje i odvajanje dijalekata uvijek povezano s politikom: neka se izoglosa možda proglasiti ključnom razlučnicom, kao i zanemarivom pojavom

c) ne vidim da postoji autentična artikulirana strast za afirmacijom crnogorskog, bar kao za bošnjački/bosanski.

I, na kraju, trijezna istina: lingvisti mogu napraviti 1, 2,..5,.. jezika iz relativno homogene dijalekatske mase, propisivanjem i normiranjem, tj. eliminacijom stanovitih oblika. Zahvat može ići na svim razinama, a jezična politika- ako je dovoljno uporna- može u potpunosti eliminirati neke oblike (npr., vukovac Maretić eliminirao je iz hrvatskog "proti" s dativom, što koristi još Matoš (proti njemu, proti svim neprijateljima), kao i futur 3. (ja budem pisati), dok je afirmirao neke izraze i pojmove (prijeglas, nazočnost, razudba,..). Iako se čini da u moderno doba zahvati toga tipa nisu mogući zbog elastične stabilnosti/gipke pružnosti standardnih jezika- ne bih se kladio. Baš suprotno, mediji/općila omogućuju ukorijenjivanje preskribiranih/propisanih gramatičkih i leksičkih normi (slovničkih i rječničkih obvezujućih propisa). Mir Harven 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tvoje stanoviste je vise politicko a to je upravo ono sto bih ja htio izbjec. Sadasnji termin Crnogorski jezik, bar onako kako se koristi u dnevnoj upotrebi, se prvenstveno odnosi na "govorni" jezik. Kao sto sam vec napomenuo ranije, ono o cemu ti govoris se odnosi ocito na "knjizevni" Crnogorski. Tekst sa naslovom "Crnogorski" ako pretenduje da potpuno obradi temu, treba da se bavi obojema. Momisan 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

E bojim se da se politika ne može izbjeći. Lingvistika (nauka o jeziku) čak i ne daje definiciju jezika, bar ne u distinktivnom smislu o kojem govorimo; "dijalekat" je, s druge strane, relativno dobro definisan pojam. Sociolingvistika, koja je grana sociologije, se bavi definicijom "jezika" sa socio-političkog aspekta. Često citirana maksima je Language is a dialect with an army and navy (taj članak je, btw, sranje, ne postižem da se pozabavim njime). Koncepti se često prepliću, kao i uvijek kad se kompleksna prirodna pojava pokušava klasifikovati u ustaljene šablone (a naše područje u dobrom dijelu bježi tim šablonima); preporučujem članke Ausbausprache za uvod u tematiku s jedne i Dialect continuum s druge strane. Mislim da bismo se svi (čak i Mir) složili da, da je istorija bila drugačija, možda danas imali jedan Jugoslovenski ili Štokavski jezik čak i ako bi njegovi govornici govorili identično kao što govore sada. Ampak, pošto nije, tu smo gdje smo—i ostaje nam da tu situaciju opišemo na fer način. Duja 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Da se ne miješa dijakronija i sinkronija- nije isto 21. stoljeće i 10. Stvar bi bila drugačija da na području sadašnje Crne Gore ne postoji pismenost, ili da su pismo napravili nekakvi misionari- recimo, 1890. Za jezik kao dijasistem nije problematično reći što je (iako je možda problematično nazvati to crnogorskim jezikom, no mislim da to i nije neka točka sporenja). To su razno novo- i nenovoštokavski jekavski govori. To je ono što hrvatski lingvist Josip Silić zove "jezik kao sustav". No, "jezik kao standard" nešto je drugo-ne posve drugo, no lingvistička kategorija koja ima svoje zakonitosti. Standardni jezik nosilac je civilizacije, na njemu se pišu udžbenici, titluju filmovi, studira, komunicira u sudstvu, policiji i trgovini....dakle, polivalentno sredstvo komunikacije jedne ili više zajedinica. I taj je jezik zapravo "neprirodan". On je mogao biti ovakav, a ispao je onakav. Engleski bi bio kao skandinavski jezici da francuski Normani nisu izvršili invaziju. Ne bi izgubio padeže i postao analitički, a ne flektivan jezik. Da nije bilo Turaka, možda bi postojala tri-četiri jezika u ex-Yu: kranjski (više-manje ovakav), hrvatski (čakavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina), bosanski (štokavsko ikavski) i srpski (štokavsko-ekavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina). Da nije bilo fascinacije Iliraca Dubrovnikom, možda bi hrvatski bio temeljen na štokavsko ikavskom. Da Vuk nije inzistirao na seoskim govorima i da je srpska klasa u Vojvodini bila elastičnija, možda bi srpski bio ponarodnjeni slaveno-srpski, bez lomova i prijeloma. Da i Vuk i Ilirci nisu plesali jedni oko drugih i imali love-hate relationship, možda ne bi procesi standardizacije ta dva jezika izazvali takve zbrke da su stranci i dandanas zbunjeni. Možda bi Vuk uveo nesam, nesi, neje,.....da nije tražio neke srednje putove. Možda bi Hrvati imali dvojni standard, ikavski i jekavski (kao što Srbi imaju ekavski i jekavski), da Bečka osmorka nije imala politiku na umu. Možda bi.....No, to su sve spekulacije tipa "što bi bilo kad bi bilo". "Politika" (ili jezično planiranje) određuje standard, i vjerojatno je, sada, jedino zanimljivo pitanje: u kojoj su mjeri jezici standardizirani da uopće više dopuštaju zahvat u svoje tkivo ? Glede Dujine hipoteze: hja, možda. Činjenica je da su još 1914. (Skerlićeva anketa) mnogi vjerovali u to da je moguć jedan jezik, recimo, "novoštokavski". Iako je lako poslije bitke biti general, ja mislim da Srbi i Hrvati nisu mogli imati jedan jezik onako blizak kao npr. američki i britanski engleski, jenostavno zbog ukorijenjenih kulturnih tradicija. Temeljna gramatika (padeži i sl.) mogla je biti ista, no funkcionalni stilovi proistječu iz civilizacije koja ih obilježuje na svim razinama, od sintakse do pragmatike. Vidi s eto po tom što su se od 1850. do 1950. (okvirno) usrdno mučili da stvore jedan i jedinstven jezik, a nisu uspjeli zbog sila kulturnocivilizacijske naravi. Stoga, IMO, pravo pitanje nije "jesu li ti jezici jedan ili više njih", nego- "kako to da su postali tako bliski, a opet ostali razlučivi ?" Mir Harven 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ne vidim zašto bi Vuk uopšte, čak i da nije bilo njegove želje za zajedničkim srpskohrvatskim jezikom, uvodio oblik nesam u književni srpski jezik. Vuk je rođeni ijekavac i njegov rad na standardiranju srpskog jezika zasnovan je na ijekavici, i ijekavski bi i bio i da Vuk nije sarađivao s ilircima. I ne vidim zašto bi srpski bio štokavsko-ekavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina da nije bilo Turaka, kad većina Srba govori ijekavskim izgovorom, i kad je i Vuk bio ijekavac. Srpski bi bio ekavski jedino da Vuka nije bilo - a ne Turaka, zaista ne znam kakve veze Turci imaju s tim - ali onda ni hrvatski ne bi bio ijekavski. Zapravo, možda i bi, ali ne bi bilo Vuka da vam napiše pravila kako da ga govorite. :p Ali u pravu si, besmisleno je govoriti o tome "šta bi bilo kad bi..." Samo sam htio da napomenem da je srpski i te kako ijekavski, a ne samo ekavski, i da nije ijekavski zbog Turaka. Srbi su ijekavicu donijeli na Balkan. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hja....ne bih želio skretati u jezično-političko-nacionalne vode, no ti je neizbježno (čini se). Uostalom, nije to prvi put:Talk:Shtokavian_dialect#Looks_like_Ivi.C4.87_deserves_more. Da ne pilim o detaljima: a) Vuk je preuzeo ikavski oblik (nisam...), a ne jekavski (nijesam-iako ga je često koristio, no, to nije bio konačni oblik na kojem se zaustavio), ni ekavski (nesam- što bi bilo konzistentno, ako ne za njega, a ono za većinu srpske pismenosti poslije njega. OK, možda nisam bio dovoljno jasan. b) glede Srba, jekavice i sl.- činjenica je da do Vuka nitko od Srba nije pisao na tom refleksu jata, pa je taj idiom tretiran kao petokolonaški Vukov pokušaj katolizacije i unijaćenja. Vjerojatno je da su većina štokavskih jekavaca (bili) Srbi-no, veoma je upitno da je većina Srba u to doba, 1800-1850., bila izvornim govornicima nekoga oblika štokavske jekavštine. Ne obazirući se na to da su se srpski jekavski govori suzili odonda, i teritorijalno, i demografski (u okviru srpske nacije)- vrlo je upitno jesu li Vukovi podatci o rasprostranjenosti jekavice među Srbima onoga doba točni. Praktički svi su srpski dokumenti u kojima ima vernakulara, od 1300ih nadalje (Dušanov zakonik, djela Venclovića i Raića i sl.) s ekavskom, a ne jekavskom zamjenom jata (ondje gdje je upisana), pa se na tom i slomio pokušaj Vukov da jekavica bude osnovicom srpskoga standarda. Ukratko- srpski su prijevodi hrvatskih vernakularnih tekstova na ikavici (Došen, Relković) i jekavici (Gundulić, kasnije Šenoa) na ekavski oblik pokazali da se taj idiom, generalno, tretira kao nešto strano. Time ne negiram ulogu srpske jekavice u literaturi (Kočić, Ćopić, Selimović, Njegoš (?)). No- to je ispalo onako usput. Glavna je teze, s tom ilustracijom ili bez nje, nepromijenjena: standardni jezik je konstrukt s dosta proizvoljnoga u sebi. Mir Harven 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To je tačno da do Vuka niko od srpskih književnika nije pisao na ijekavskom, ali ne zato što niko od Srba nije govorio ijekavski (baš naprotiv - većina Srba su (bili) ijekavci), već zato što se srpska pisana književnost u 17. i 18. vijeku jedino mogla razvijati u Vojvodini, koja je ekavska (Venclović, Dositej Obradović, Jovan Sterija Popović i dr.), dok su Srbi ijekavci živjeli u Turskom carstvu, gdje pismenosti nije bilo, bar ne u tolikoj mjeri da bi se stvorila jedna značajna pisana književnost. Međutim, usmena književnost se jeste i te kako razvijala, a ona je upravo ijekavska. Ali bilo je i rijetkih književnika u tadašnjoj Turskoj, koji su, dakle, bili ijekavci. Na primjer, užički pekar Miladin Radović u drugoj polovini čak 19. stoljeća, kada je Užice već poodavno dio ekavske (šumadijska ekavica je u pitanju) Srbije, piše svoj "Samouki rukopis", hronologiju tadašnje užičke istorije, i svakako koristi svoj maternji izgovor - ijekavski. Zatim, Vuk nije, koliko se meni čini, prihvatio oblik nisam, to je valjda bilo nekad nakon njega, u kasnijoj standardizaciji srpskog (srpskohrvatskog) jezika, a sam Vuk uvijek je pisao nijesam. Takođe je tek Aleksandar Belić (1930-tih godina) predložio da se piše tih i ovim, umjesto dotadašnjeg tijeh i ovijem, što je i Vuk tako pisao. Onda, htio sam još napomenuti i to da se ekavski izgovor pojavio u Raškoj u 13. vijeku. Kao što već rekoh, Srbi su s ijekavicom došli na Balkan, kao što su Hrvati donijeli ikavicu. A glavna prepreka da ijekavica bude osnova srpskog književnog jezika, kako je to Vuk zamislio i Daničić i drugi nakon njega, bilo je to što se većina srpske intelektualne elite nalazila u ekavskim oblastima - Novom Sadu, Beogradu, djelimično i Nišu. Čini se da je njima ipak bilo preteško govoriti mlijeko i dijete. :) Zato danas u srpskom jeziku imamo tu dvojakost ekavice i ijekavice. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Molim vas, tema je Crnogorski jezik. Dujo, u redu, izbjec je mozda prejaka rijec. Srz pitanja Crnogorskog jezika, medjutim, i jeste fakt da sadasnji standardi ne odgovaraju u dovoljnoj mjeri sadasnjem govornom jeziku. Sa formiranjem drzave, ono sto je bio marginalan lokalni govor u Jugoslovenskim razmjerama, sada postaje vecinski, u Crnogorskim razmjerama. Jedan dio obrazovane populacije ne zeli vise da se povinuje arbitrarnim jezickim pravilima iz 19 vijeka i zeli svoj govorni jezik priznat i standardizovan. To je cijela prica i treba je kao takvu i prezentirati citaocoma Vikipedije. Zbog toga clanak kao poglavlje ima i opis govornoga jezika. Momisan 01:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. No, onda bi trebale postojati informacije o dijelu populacije CG koje traži neke standardnojezične zahvate, te opisati profil tih zahvata. Mislim da je korektno naveden dio o Nikčeviću (pročitao sam jednu njegovu knjigu s karakterističnim tipom grafije)-no, to je, koliko znam-sve. Budući da wiki služi kao servis informacija, tu može biti samo navoda o dijalekatskom profilu CG, te o iznesenim i raspravljanim projektima nove crnogorske jezične profilacije. Možda nemam dovoljno podataka, no, nisam čuo da postoji širi pokret s jasnije definiranim ciljevima o standardu (kakav je bio (i još jest) među Bošnjacima). Mir Harven 11:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali fakat da "sadašnji standardi ne odgovaraju u dovoljnoj mjeri govornom jeziku" je, manje ili više, slučaj svugdje. Većina Hrvata jedva da poznaje četvoroakcenatski sistem, i slabo razlikuje je i ije; dobar dio Bošnjaka slabo ferma č/ć, dž/đ; kao što Miloš reče, on sam ima problema sa postakcenatskim dužinama; ja sam nekako usvojio sve vrijeme, ali Miličin ne mogu da prevalim preko usta; o torlački padeži da i ne pričamo. Kad jedan dijalekt ili idiom (makar i bio "oktroisan", kao što je istočnohercegovački, Hrvati bi rekli dubrovački) uđe u široku upotrebu i etablira se kao jezik medija i pisaca, te obrazovanijeg dijela populacije, teško je naknadno "ispravljati krive Drine", i to novo "oktroisanje" će naići na značajan otpor onog drugog dijela javnosti: ili će se govor onih koji su do tada pričali "pravilno" odjednom postati "nepravilan", ili će se dopustiti sve i svašta, što će dovesti do haosa. Pogledaj koliko je buke nastalo oko benignih stvari u German spelling reform, a i oko ne ću u Hrvatskoj. Kad se stvar jednom učauri, teško je ispraviti krive Drine.
Ne slažem se u potpunosti da je sadašnji "standardni" jezik u Crnoj Gori "povinovan arbitrarnim jezičkim pravilima"; mislim da on dosta odgovara npr. hercegnovskom izrazu. To je slučaj i sa npr. Hrvatskim, baziranim na dubrovačkom. Iako su to manjinski dijalekti, što kaže Mir, "standardni jezik je konstrukt s dosta proizvoljnoga u sebi", a pokušaji da se status quo promijeni će uvijek izazvati mnogo vatre. Duja 10:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mislim da je kljucna rijec dovoljnoj, a ona je, slazem se, rastegljiv pojam. Nemam kristalnu kuglu, medjutim, samo sam zelio da naglasim da Nikcevic nije usamljen i da bi trebalo objasniti motivaciju. U nedostatku boljih izvora, mozete pogledati ovaj link [9] kao nekakav presjek trenutnog stanje dijaloga o jeziku u CG. Istocno-Hercegovacki dijalekt izgleda prilicno prostran na mapi, medjutim kad se pogleda u kojim se to gradovima govori: Niksic, Zabljak, Savnik, Pljevlja, Mojkovac, H Novi(?). Max 25-30% populacije.Momisan 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)