Slovenian inhabitants according to plan

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Nina van M.
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 31 Oct 2003 23:55
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

Post by Nina van M. » 24 Nov 2003 11:16

Kocjo, mislim, da kar dobro obvladam svoj materni jezik in da večjih težav ne bi smelo biti, pa iz "Lublane sm tut" :wink:

Yes, Michael, in fact you're right about those divisions you mentioned. Slovene is "kajkavian" or as we say "kajkavščina", but inside of Slovene language we have a great variety of dialects (can't provide the exact number right now, but I'll try to find it soon). So we can say "what" on many different ways, such as "kva", "kuga", "kuha", "kej" and so on and so on....
Slovene could be also "ekavian" or as we say "ekavščina", but not exactly the way Serbs are, because we have different accentuation of this "e" in words. For instance- we say "zvezda, svet, mleko,...." just like Serbs do (star, world, milk...), but Slovene "e" is shorter and closer.

Why should be Slovene "artificial" language, I didn't get it quite, Michael?

I've heard for this aspiration for Croat being "basic" language for all the rest of southern-Slavic languages, but this thesis is not accepted anywhere else but in Croatia.
Slovene is a unique language, a sort of mixture of German, Italian and Slavic and others, so I'm not really satisfied with calling Slovene just "another variant of Croatian" or anything like that. :| This is often done just in order to simplify things and not "going behind the scenes" of each nations history.

Regards, von Kluge
Last edited by Nina van M. on 24 Nov 2003 18:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
K.Kocjancic
Member
Posts: 6788
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 19:57
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

Post by K.Kocjancic » 24 Nov 2003 11:21

The "hardest" dialect to understand in Slovenia (for me at least) is Prekmurščina, language of Prekmurje region. Language is mixture of Slovene, German, Croatian and Hungarian languages. And try to understand that! :wink: :lol:

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 24 Nov 2003 15:31

There was an old National Geographic article I read as a young man where the author tried to describe the differences in the Peoples of Yugoslavia. He said the Slovenes explained their higher standard of living by saying they learned the habit of saving their money from the Germans. What do the Slovene posters say to that? :)

User avatar
Locke
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 13:29
Location: Radovljica/Ljubljana, Slovenia

Post by Locke » 24 Nov 2003 16:54

Dan wrote:There was an old National Geographic article I read as a young man where the author tried to describe the differences in the Peoples of Yugoslavia. He said the Slovenes explained their higher standard of living by saying they learned the habit of saving their money from the Germans. What do the Slovene posters say to that? :)
Especially people from Gorenjska region (where I live) are known as stingy. There are a lot of jokes about us. :|
I think our stinginess comes from the fact that there are a lot of mountains around so there is not much land to cultivate and also from the Germans.
And the rule for people from Gorenjska is: "Čez sedem let vse prav pride", which literally means: After seven years you will need everything. This would mean that you shouldn't waste things, because you might need them someday. (For people from Tržič the upper rule is changed - After twenty years....instead of seven :) )

regards,
Polona

User avatar
Locke
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 13:29
Location: Radovljica/Ljubljana, Slovenia

Post by Locke » 24 Nov 2003 17:11

von kluge wrote:Kocjo, mislim, da kar dobro obvladam svoj materin jezik in da večjih težav ne bi smelo biti, pa iz "Lublane sm tut" :wink:

Yes, Michael, in fact you're right about those divisions you mentioned. Slovene is "kajkavian" or as we say "kajkavščina", but inside of Slovene language we have a great variety of dialects (can't provide the exact number right now, but I'll try to find it soon). So we can say "what" on many different ways, such as "kva", "kuga", "kuha", "kej" and so on and so on....
Slovene could be also "ekavian" or as we say "ekavščina", but not exactly the way Serbs are, because we have different accentuation of this "e" in words. For instance- we say "zvezda, svet, mleko,...." just like Serbs do (star, world, milk...), but Slovene "e" is shorter and closer.

Why should be Slovene "artificial" language, I didn't get it quite, Michael?

I've heard for this aspiration for Croat being "basic" language for all the rest of southern-Slavic languages, but this thesis is not accepted anywhere else but in Croatia.
Slovene is a unique language, a sort of mixture of German, Italian and Slavic and others, so I'm not really satisfied with calling Slovene just "another variant of Croatian" or anything like that. :| This is often done just in order to simplify things and not "going behind the scenes" of each nations history.

Regards, von Kluge
There are about 50 different dialects, but almost every village has its own dialect. So we divide Slovenian language into eight groups of provincial colloquial languages (OK maybe it is worth to have a strict teacher for slovenian language :) )

The first document written in Slavic language in latin letters (karolingian minuscule) are Brižinski spomeniki in Slovenian language from year 1000 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising_monuments

*von K - materni jezik! saj ni od tvoje mame (tko je naša slovarca rekla :wink: )*

Regards,
Polona

User avatar
Nina van M.
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 31 Oct 2003 23:55
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

Post by Nina van M. » 24 Nov 2003 18:38

Ja, pa je tut od moje mame... Sej je Slovenka,no. :lol: Aja, maš prov, Polona, tut v SSKJ tko piše, pol je že najbrž res! Sej se grem popravt takoj, da ne bom ljudi narobe učila... Na faksu mal pozabš te stvari...

To others- that was just a chat about grammar in Slovene. Locke already got the number of dialects in Slovenia and it is large, believe me.

About our similarity to Germans? Hmmm, must be something on it, but there is also Italian influence on the west, Hungarian on the East, Croatian on the south... Rare mixture I'd say...
Slovenia had the highest standard in Yugoslavia and also were Slovene people known as "good and diligent" workers with dicipline. And this discipline is the thing we have in common with Germans. Not that quite strictly as them, but more than other ex-YU nations. This is nr.1 stereotype about Slovenia in former Yugoslavia. About stinginess I've heard too, but this is yet another story :)

Pozdrav, von Kluge

User avatar
Roo Boy
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 07 Nov 2003 04:17
Location: Australia

Post by Roo Boy » 26 Nov 2003 04:12

von kluge wrote:I've heard for this aspiration for Croat being "basic" language for all the rest of southern-Slavic languages, but this thesis is not accepted anywhere else but in Croatia.
Slovene is a unique language, a sort of mixture of German, Italian and Slavic and others, so I'm not really satisfied with calling Slovene just "another variant of Croatian" or anything like that.
I grew up in a household with a Slovenian father and Croatian mother. I was taught both languages and have always found Slovenian to be a unique language and fairly difficult to learn. This has been the case with my wife whose parents are from Chile (We are a real United Nations family now). She can pick up Croatian words easily but has difficulty catching on to Slovenian words. Therefore Von Kluge you are correct in saying that Slovenian is not a variant of Croatian. To me it is vastly different.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23712
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 26 Nov 2003 06:10

For Slovenian linguists -- please provide English translations for our international readership.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 26 Nov 2003 11:05

Von Kluge asked:
Why should be Slovene "artificial" language, I didn't get it quite, Michael?
What I meant was that the modern standard Slovene, Croat and Serb languages were devised by Yugoslav nationalists in the 19th century to be national languages, rather than developing organically.

For example, the modern Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian standard languages derive from a dialect spoken in Herzegovina which was selected in the 19th Century by two nationalists, a Serb Vuk Karadzic and a Croat whose name I forget, to be the national language of the South Slavs. The reason why they chose that particular dialect was because it was spoken by all three ethnic groups in the area, by Catholics, Serb Orthodox and Muslims, and was not associated with any single ethnic group.

As I understand it, that dialect, on which modern Croatian is based, is markedly different from the dialect of Zagreb, which has more in common with the dialects spoken in Slovenia. Thus, the border between Croatia and Slovenia is not a lingusitic frontier in that the local dialects on either side of the political border are supposed to be quite similar. It is only standard Slovene and standard Serbo-Croatian that are very different from each other. Presumably the dialect chosen as the basis for modern standard Slovene was very different from the dialect chosen as the basis for Serbo-Croatian.

Krasnaya Zvezda
Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 17:45
Location: Moscow

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 27 Nov 2003 05:45

michael mills wrote:

What I meant was that the modern standard Slovene, Croat and Serb languages were devised by Yugoslav nationalists in the 19th century to be national languages, rather than developing organically.

For example, the modern Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian standard languages derive from a dialect spoken in Herzegovina which was selected in the 19th Century by two nationalists, a Serb Vuk Karadzic and a Croat whose name I forget, to be the national language of the South Slavs. The reason why they chose that particular dialect was because it was spoken by all three ethnic groups in the area, by Catholics, Serb Orthodox and Muslims, and was not associated with any single ethnic group.

As I understand it, that dialect, on which modern Croatian is based, is markedly different from the dialect of Zagreb, which has more in common with the dialects spoken in Slovenia. Thus, the border between Croatia and Slovenia is not a lingusitic frontier in that the local dialects on either side of the political border are supposed to be quite similar. It is only standard Slovene and standard Serbo-Croatian that are very different from each other. Presumably the dialect chosen as the basis for modern standard Slovene was very different from the dialect chosen as the basis for Serbo-Croatian.
Do not want to deflect from the subject, yet couple of caveats here

1. The name of the Croat was Ljudevit Gaj, stounch panslavist, supporter of unification of all the South Slavs, he was for the union with the Serbs and followed Karadzic.

2. Shtokavica was choosen by Karadzic because he was from the area that used that dialect

3. You are wrong about the Slovenian language, it is not a dialect especially not kajkavica, it is a separate language. A Zagreb resident can understand without any problem somebody from Novi Sad in distant Vojvodina as it is a same language spoken in Serbia whatever somebody has to say , than somebody from Slovenia couple of kilometars away where he can experience different degrees of problems.,

4. Macedonians are definitely not Western Bulgarians. Language may have similarity, but so does Russian with the Bulgarian yet they are separate languages.

All the best.

TM2000
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Jul 2003 08:01
Location: Central Europe

Language

Post by TM2000 » 27 Nov 2003 12:32

Michael Mills wrote:
As I understand it, that dialect, on which modern Croatian is based, is markedly different from the dialect of Zagreb, which has more in common with the dialects spoken in Slovenia. Thus, the border between Croatia and Slovenia is not a lingusitic frontier in that the local dialects on either side of the political border are supposed to be quite similar. It is only standard Slovene and standard Serbo-Croatian that are very different from each other. Presumably the dialect chosen as the basis for modern standard Slovene was very different from the dialect chosen as the basis for Serbo-Croatian.

Exellent definition and I am surprised someone from so far away has such good knowledge about the subject. You have right, what is today standard Slovene ist the so called Carniolian (Oberkrain) dialect which was adopted as literary language. The language of first Slovenian and Croatian writers (16 century) is still the same (kajkavian dialect or language). The kajkavian dialect or language was spoken in what today Slovenia is, Slavonia, Istria (with the softening of ka into cha) and northern part of Croatian coast. The border between the kajkavian and shtokavian dialect or language was the river Sava on south, which was a natural border that prevented the population to migrate and to exchange the language. It is very evidently, that the landscapes are still named Slovenia, Slavonia, Slovakia (the population of the whole northern Croatia used to call themselves Slavonci) and we know, that hungerian tribes settled later and assimilated the former population. Anyway we get the circle of landscapes, where the language of inhabitants was/is called slovenski (Slovenia), slovinski (Slavonia till 17 century, Istria and nothern part of Croatia), slovensko (Slovakia). I would guess by analogy what was the name of the language of inhabitants that were assimilated by Hungarians called?

The croatian tribe from the central Dalmatia (Arvati or perhaps Awari) has given the name and national feeling through centuries to the whole population of today's Croatia. In Bosnia the population adopted the national feeling through religious affiliation. Roman Catholics became Croats (through Franciscan order monks), Orthodox became Serbs. Those that converted to islam, became Moslems, but they were rather Turks by national feeling in 19-th and beginning of 20-th century. But principaly we have one shtokavian speaking population in Bosnia that adopted 3 national belongings.

The Croatian population has changed the language through waste migrations of shtokavian speaking population from south due to Turkish invasions from 16 - 19 century. The "newcomers" have adopted the religion and national feeling of croatian aborigines but they have adopted the shtokavian language of "newcomers". With Ljudevid Gaj in 19-th century it became the standard language.

There were attempts in History to switch back on Kajkavian language. Besides including of archaic kajkavian words into standard language the NDH (1941) state had made a serious plan to settle 200.000 from german side exiled Slovenes (plan only) on teritories of from Croatian side exiled Serbs in NDH-state. They would therefore change the language of teritories, national belonging (would not take long and slovenians would adopt croatian national feeling) and religious belonging (Roman Chatolics).
You are wrong about the Slovenian language, it is not a dialect especially not kajkavica, it is a separate language. A Zagreb resident can understand without any problem somebody from Novi Sad in distant Vojvodina as it is a same language spoken in Serbia whatever somebody has to say , than somebody from Slovenia couple of kilometars away where he can experience different degrees of problems.,


That is the fact today Krasnaya Zvezda due to the above described process that lasted centuries. But still today there is no linguistical border in the villages on Slovenian-Croatian border. The same language or dialect is spoken. But there is already and unfortunately a deep political, national feelings and standard language border.
Macedonians are definitely not Western Bulgarians. Language may have similarity, but so does Russian with the Bulgarian yet they are separate languages.


Standard language of Macedonia to Bulgaria has the same differences as the standard language of Australia to America (USA).

This has nothing to do with their national feeling.

Krasnaya Zvezda
Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 17:45
Location: Moscow

Re: Language

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 27 Nov 2003 13:14

TM2000 wrote:Standard language of Macedonia to Bulgaria has the same differences as the standard language of Australia to America (USA).

This has nothing to do with their national feeling.
Very wrong. An average Macedonian can probably understand60 -80% of the language ( I have actually asked people from Bulgaria and Macedonia for this) that is not the case with Australians who understand 100% American except when accent may come into play but we are talking about the written language here, also the alphabet of the Bulgarian language has characters that Macedonian language is not using and vice versa. I suggest if you want to test yoru hypothesis to go on a Macedonian forum or Bulgarian and start writing in the language you want to test, or simply ask the people how much they understand, you willl clearly see that Bulgarian is a separate lanugage and can not be compared like English in Australia with English in USA which is the same language.

As far as your comment of politial division between the border of Croatia and Slovenia, well I agree, there is no hard border in the spoken language almost anywhre in Europe where people of the same origin live (Slavs in this instance) the language transition exists. But I was refering to Zagreb residents who understand easier somebody from Belgrade than somebody from Ljubljana, written language is almost the same as a Zagreb resident has no problems reading Serbian press or Bosnian, while it has reading Slovenian press.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8982
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 28 Nov 2003 04:21

TM 2000,

Thanks for your information, which complements what I already knew from the lecture I referred to.

I think your interpretation of history is more correct than that given by the Croatian lecturer. Although he also referred to the migrations caused by the Ottoman invasion, he claimed that all the emigrants were ethnic Croats.

In fact, he claimed that all the people of modern Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were part of the Croat nation from early medieval times, and that ethnic changes were created by the Ottomans, who converted most of the Croats of Bosnia to Islam, thereby creating the modern Bosnian Muslim people. He also claimed that the Serbs were in origin a nomadic gypsy people, who were settled in Bosnia by the Ottoman rulers in order to fight against the Croats.

I thought that the lecturer's presentation, although containing much fact (for example he handed out maps showing the different dialects, which I still have), was very nationalistic in tone, and really appealed to the audience, who were mainly Australian Croats.

I tend to the view that the modern Croatian nation was formed in the 19th century out of the amalgamation of a number of different groups, eg Sokci and Bunjevci in Vojvodina. Of course, there were people called Croats before then, but the name applied mainly to a military group in the Habsburg armies, a bit like the Gurkhas in the British Army or the Cossacks in Russia.

Likewise, the modern Serbs have been formed from the amalgamation of various groups, including Vlachs. At one time the people of modern Serbia were called Rascians.

TM2000
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Jul 2003 08:01
Location: Central Europe

Post by TM2000 » 28 Nov 2003 12:57

Michael Mills wrote:
I think your interpretation of history is more correct than that given by the Croatian lecturer. Although he also referred to the migrations caused by the Ottoman invasion, he claimed that all the emigrants were ethnic Croats.

In fact, he claimed that all the people of modern Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were part of the Croat nation from early medieval times, and that ethnic changes were created by the Ottomans, who converted most of the Croats of Bosnia to Islam, thereby creating the modern Bosnian Muslim people. He also claimed that the Serbs were in origin a nomadic gypsy people, who were settled in Bosnia by the Ottoman rulers in order to fight against the Croats.
Excellent knowledge again. It is obvious he was Croatian lecturer. The Serbian one would claim that all Muslems and Croats from Bosnia are former Serbs that were forced to convert to Islam and Roman-Chatolic religion. In fact Serbs would claim that all shtokavian speaking population from former Yu are converted Serbs and all Kajkavians are converted Slovenians. They would admit for Croats only few Chakavian speaking inhabitants from upper Dalmatia. But watch out: not South Dalmatia, which they consider for serbian. If you look at the history of YU conflicts 1991 - 95 you will see the fightings in the first period were roughly on this borders. The serbian military objectives were territories which Serbs consider historicaly populated by shtokavians. Therefore the "new" Yugoslavian frontier on the nord should be: Virovitica - Karlovac - Karlobag - den Haag; the last military truth came at the end.
I thought that the lecturer's presentation, although containing much fact (for example he handed out maps showing the different dialects, which I still have), was very nationalistic in tone, and really appealed to the audience, who were mainly Australian Croats.

I tend to the view that the modern Croatian nation was formed in the 19th century out of the amalgamation of a number of different groups, eg Sokci and Bunjevci in Vojvodina. Of course, there were people called Croats before then, but the name applied mainly to a military group in the Habsburg armies, a bit like the Gurkhas in the British Army or the Cossacks in Russia.


The name Croat (the same as Serb) is very old. First mentioned directly in the 9-th century. There is very probable interpretation that both names (croat and serb) refer to the military group, but much older than Habsburgs were. Due to this theory both names mean the same and have the same root: HRV = SRB, but became dialecticaly different. (example Hetits - Semits H=S) and B=V is exchangeable in slavic languages. The meaning of the root of this word should be "the back" (hrbet) and should describe the groups of soldiers (good grown) in the former slavic societies. With the time this groups became independant and gave the name to the surrounding population, that had adopted their name.

That's why we have both names among the other Slavs too. You have Sorben in Germany and historicaly the name was recorded in ancient times too. The Croatian names were recorded as White and red Croats (in todays Czech republic).

This is explanation for the same language and as well why there were Rascians in the past in present Serbia. By the way the name Rasi (those of the Race) is very frequent too. The Etruscans called themselves Rasi, the serbians used to, and you have Russians on the east.

[/quote]

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”