Everything is good and interesting. I really enjoy reading your articles and I am grateful for your effort and willingness to share freely with readers.
However, you are wrong in one thing here.
There is no Croatian-Serbian or Serbian-Croatian language. This is the stupidity that was intended to create a hybrid language, in order to serve the easier subjugation of the Latin-linguistic Croatian people under the Cyrillic-linguistic Serbs in their long-term dreaming of their "Greater Serbia" project.
Just as it would be incorrect to say that the Swiss speak the French-German-Italian language. Or that Belgians speaks the Flemish-Walloon language.
Identifying, i.e. equating, the Croatian and Serbian languages could be caused by insufficient knowledge of the matter, or kind of anti-Croatian nationalism.
The Serbo-Croatian language project is no less than linguistic genocide, which has been carried out against the Croatian language since the Great Serbs under the auspices of Austro-Slavist ideas started the "Yugoslav project".
Do we remember Yugoslavia? They had come quite close there, but fortunately not far enough. And there, for the purpose of maintaining the state creation with that name, where they will rule over other peoples, it was necessary for them to create some new "fraternal" hybrid language.
Nonsense. Serbian and Croatian are very close South Slav languages (dialects?). French & German and also Walloon & Flemish are pairings from unrelated language groups. In fact, you may be in danger of harming your proud, Croatian, chest-thumping case by drawing attention to Walloon and Flemish, two languages that don't really exist; they are just French and Dutch.
From Wiki--I was classifying on strictly linguistic terms:
The use of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic label has been the subject of long-standing controversy. Linguist Wayles Browne calls it a "term of convenience" and notes the difference of opinion as to whether it comprises a single language or a cluster of languages.[103] **Ronelle Alexander refers to the national standards as three separate languages, but also notes that the reasons for this are complex and generally non-linguistic.** She calls BCS (her term for Serbo-Croatian) **a single language for communicative linguistic purposes, but three separate languages for symbolic non-linguistic purposes.**
The nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian has been the subject of long-standing sociolinguistic debate.[100] The question is whether Serbo-Croatian should be called a single language or a cluster of closely related languages.
Comparison with other pluricentric languages
See also: Declaration on the Common Language
Linguist Enisa Kafadar argues that there is only one Serbo-Croatian language with several varieties.[104] This has made it possible to include all four varieties in new grammars of the language. Daniel Bunčić concludes that it is **a pluricentric language, with four standard variants** spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. **The mutual intelligibility between their speakers "exceeds that between the standard variants of English, French, German, or Spanish".** "There is no doubt of the near 100% mutual intelligibility of (standard) Croatian and (standard) Serbian, as is obvious from the ability of all groups to enjoy each others' films, TV and sports broadcasts, newspapers, rock lyrics etc."[108] Other linguists have argued that the differences between the variants of Serbo-Croatian are less significant than those between the variants of English,[109] German,[110] Dutch,[111] and Hindustani.[112]
Among pluricentric languages,[113][114] Serbo-Croatian was the only one with a pluricentric standardisation within one state.[115][116] The dissolution of Yugoslavia has made Serbo-Croatian even more of a typical pluricentric language, since the variants of other pluricentric languages are also spoken in different states.[117][118]
As in other pluricentric languages **all Serbo-Croatian standard varieties are based on the same dialect (the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect of the Shtokavian dialect) and consequently, according to the sociolinguistic definitions, constitute a single pluricentric language** (and not, for example, several Ausbau languages[119]).[120] According to linguist John Bailyn, "An examination of all the major 'levels' of language shows that BCS is clearly a single language with a single grammatical system."[108]
In 2017, numerous prominent writers, scientists, journalists, activists and other public figures from Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia signed the Declaration on the Common Language, which states that in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro a common polycentric standard language is used, consisting of several standard varieties, such as German, English or Spanish.
Mark, thank you for your time and effort taken to understand it better. It would be good to know that the so-called The "Croatian" Wikipedia is actually mostly written in Vuk's Srbo-Croatian Yugo-language. By Yugo-nostalgists.
Wow, all of this Slavic history is new to me, and also quite fascinating. Most Americans are stunningly ignorant of our own history, world history is not really a thing at all. Texas public schools used to (I wonder if that still is true?) require Texas history to be taught as a standalone subject in the 7th grade.
SCT, I was in Minnesota for 7th Grade and they also taught state history. I doubt that is the case anymore but I have no idea... I think it was a very good thing. Nowadays, who knows how such teaching would be twisted. I can only imagine what they might say in Texas about Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, etc.
Thanks very much for the historical linguistics lesson- Slavic edition! I am amazed that you have been able to "ad hoc" attain this degree of knowledge in an area of which you have no professional background. I have always been fascinated with linguistics and had a minor in it in college. A major part of the reason for that was my interest in History and Geography. I have always believed that the dialects and speech characteristics of people are more precise indicators of their personal and social history than any political boundaries or social labelling constructs could be.
I have seen some people argue that whether or not Putin's views of history are correct, what he believes should be taken as the only consideration when dealing with him. I believe that to be a false conclusion. If Putin is in error on his history and geography and culture those errors will eventually manifest in how his actions fail to reconcile with reality. That should, in turn, inform us how he should be viewed and dealt with...
War also has a habit of hardening historical views. I bet if tucker had the same conversation with putin in 2019 or earlier, he would have been much less absolute in some of his remarks
Re the reference to Old Church Slavonic - a South Slavonic language- which looking at the map in green is indeed the area of Serbia, I was reminded of a wonderful article on the old Saker site, and in particular one of the comments as the arguments back and forth ensued ....
Anonymous on February 14, 2018 · at 12:17 am EST/EDT
In the Chronicle of Nestor, there is a strange passage referring to the ‘Rus’.
“The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians—Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs—drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom”. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gutes, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us”. Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated”
The ‘Rus’ were ‘particular’ Varangians, other than the Varangians who were the Swedes, Angles, Normans, Gutes (Goths). ‘Rus’ were Varangians, but Varangians were not ‘Rus’! Varangians were a ‘motley crew’ (“a roughly organized assembly of individuals of various backgrounds, appearance, and character. Typical examples of motley crews are pirates, rag-tag mercenary bands, companies of ‘merchant adventurers’, ad-hoc fellowships – Varangians may be the same as the ‘Venetoi/Veneti’ of classical sources, notoriously engaged in the amber trade and piracy, lurking on the confines of Slav core territories, from Poland to Veneto). The ‘Rus’ called to reign over the ‘Slavs’ of Kiev were most likely part of the ‘Slovenes’ who founded Novgorod, who arrived there in a northward migration, provoked, according to the Chronicle by the arrival of the ‘Valachians’ in the region of the “Slovens’ (on the Lower Danube), at an uncertain date, which pushed the Slavs northwards.
What if the ‘Rus’ originally alighted from ‘Rascia’, that they were “Rascians’ (Rasciani, Natio Rasciana as Serbs were designated in the Habsburg Monarchy)? What if the ‘Norse’ origin of the ‘Rus’ is an invention of the manic ‘white identity’ movement (which considers that ‘nordic blood’ confers nobility) which seeped from America to Europe (through masonic channels), falsifying the whole European history by exaggerating the role of the Germanics in the ‘building’ of Europe, and bringing much of the horrors which befell Europe in the 20th century?
Were the ‘Varyazy’ real ‘Norwegians’ or the ‘Varangian Imperial Guard’ recruited from the ‘Rus’ after the conversion of Prince Vladimir and the integration of ‘Rus’ into the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’? At a later date the Guard hired some Englishmen. It might come, to the chagrin of the ‘Norse/White’ fanatics, that the Russian history was from the very beginning an almost exclusively Russian affair (a Russian/Byzantine affair, to be more precise). Serbia was part of it. ‘Slavonic’ Orthodoxy was a creation of the far reaching God inspired vision of Patriarch Photios and goes hand in hand with the creation of Orthodox Russia (let’s say, if just for annoying the ‘white’ ‘Ukrainians’, that the Great Principality of Muscovy was also a Byzantine ‘creation’ and not a Tartar one).
The story of the invitation to the Rus is the one I thought everyone knew, and that Kiev belonged to the heart of Russia, but this argument over the Varangians, or Varyazy, who they were and from whence they came, and in particular this reference to the rewrite of histories as a weapon of warfare, so pertinent today, makes me wish for more time to nose around.
"Russian is the most common language spoken at home, used by 70% of the population, while Belarusian, the official first language, is spoken at home by 23%. ... The usage of Belarusian in major Belarusian cities is rare. ... According to poet Valzhyna Mort, who grew up in Belarus, the Belarusian language is mocked for its "village sound" and is considered useless in Belarus."
The future is rather grim, much more so than Ukrainian. That doesn't mean there isn't a genuine sense of national identity, but the move toward union is happening.
I am always happy to learn more about history. There is plenty I don't know. However, I feel a little annoyed that the US government has put us regular Americans in the position of having to learn the details of Russian and Eastern European history going back many centuries just to understand what the neocons are doing today and how Putin sees their actions.
Many young Americans today can't tell you who fought in the Revolutionary War, the US Civil War or WW2. But we are supposed to know the details of land around Ukraine 500 years ago? It doesn't make any sense that we have to care more about land on the other side of the world while we have, as a country, so little understanding of our own history. And in terms of present day, we have no clue who the tens of thousands of Chinese men crossing our Southern border are.
The point, I suppose, is that nobody in our government seems to care about our own country. Not even a little.
Dear friend Mark,
Everything is good and interesting. I really enjoy reading your articles and I am grateful for your effort and willingness to share freely with readers.
However, you are wrong in one thing here.
There is no Croatian-Serbian or Serbian-Croatian language. This is the stupidity that was intended to create a hybrid language, in order to serve the easier subjugation of the Latin-linguistic Croatian people under the Cyrillic-linguistic Serbs in their long-term dreaming of their "Greater Serbia" project.
Just as it would be incorrect to say that the Swiss speak the French-German-Italian language. Or that Belgians speaks the Flemish-Walloon language.
Identifying, i.e. equating, the Croatian and Serbian languages could be caused by insufficient knowledge of the matter, or kind of anti-Croatian nationalism.
The Serbo-Croatian language project is no less than linguistic genocide, which has been carried out against the Croatian language since the Great Serbs under the auspices of Austro-Slavist ideas started the "Yugoslav project".
Do we remember Yugoslavia? They had come quite close there, but fortunately not far enough. And there, for the purpose of maintaining the state creation with that name, where they will rule over other peoples, it was necessary for them to create some new "fraternal" hybrid language.
Nonsense. Serbian and Croatian are very close South Slav languages (dialects?). French & German and also Walloon & Flemish are pairings from unrelated language groups. In fact, you may be in danger of harming your proud, Croatian, chest-thumping case by drawing attention to Walloon and Flemish, two languages that don't really exist; they are just French and Dutch.
Are you suggesting that a Croat and a Serb are unable to communicate without specialized language learning?
From Wiki--I was classifying on strictly linguistic terms:
The use of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic label has been the subject of long-standing controversy. Linguist Wayles Browne calls it a "term of convenience" and notes the difference of opinion as to whether it comprises a single language or a cluster of languages.[103] **Ronelle Alexander refers to the national standards as three separate languages, but also notes that the reasons for this are complex and generally non-linguistic.** She calls BCS (her term for Serbo-Croatian) **a single language for communicative linguistic purposes, but three separate languages for symbolic non-linguistic purposes.**
More from Wiki for info of readers:
Present sociolinguistic situation
The nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian has been the subject of long-standing sociolinguistic debate.[100] The question is whether Serbo-Croatian should be called a single language or a cluster of closely related languages.
Comparison with other pluricentric languages
See also: Declaration on the Common Language
Linguist Enisa Kafadar argues that there is only one Serbo-Croatian language with several varieties.[104] This has made it possible to include all four varieties in new grammars of the language. Daniel Bunčić concludes that it is **a pluricentric language, with four standard variants** spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. **The mutual intelligibility between their speakers "exceeds that between the standard variants of English, French, German, or Spanish".** "There is no doubt of the near 100% mutual intelligibility of (standard) Croatian and (standard) Serbian, as is obvious from the ability of all groups to enjoy each others' films, TV and sports broadcasts, newspapers, rock lyrics etc."[108] Other linguists have argued that the differences between the variants of Serbo-Croatian are less significant than those between the variants of English,[109] German,[110] Dutch,[111] and Hindustani.[112]
Among pluricentric languages,[113][114] Serbo-Croatian was the only one with a pluricentric standardisation within one state.[115][116] The dissolution of Yugoslavia has made Serbo-Croatian even more of a typical pluricentric language, since the variants of other pluricentric languages are also spoken in different states.[117][118]
As in other pluricentric languages **all Serbo-Croatian standard varieties are based on the same dialect (the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect of the Shtokavian dialect) and consequently, according to the sociolinguistic definitions, constitute a single pluricentric language** (and not, for example, several Ausbau languages[119]).[120] According to linguist John Bailyn, "An examination of all the major 'levels' of language shows that BCS is clearly a single language with a single grammatical system."[108]
In 2017, numerous prominent writers, scientists, journalists, activists and other public figures from Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia signed the Declaration on the Common Language, which states that in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro a common polycentric standard language is used, consisting of several standard varieties, such as German, English or Spanish.
Mark, thank you for your time and effort taken to understand it better. It would be good to know that the so-called The "Croatian" Wikipedia is actually mostly written in Vuk's Srbo-Croatian Yugo-language. By Yugo-nostalgists.
It would be very helpful to take the some time and look here, if you really want to know: https://hr.metapedia.org/wiki/Srbohrvatski_jugojezik
The term "Rusin" is also used to described the peoples of that area.
My own maternal grandfather's first name was Rusin. They are a mix of Eastern slav and southern Slav.
Wow, all of this Slavic history is new to me, and also quite fascinating. Most Americans are stunningly ignorant of our own history, world history is not really a thing at all. Texas public schools used to (I wonder if that still is true?) require Texas history to be taught as a standalone subject in the 7th grade.
SCT, I was in Minnesota for 7th Grade and they also taught state history. I doubt that is the case anymore but I have no idea... I think it was a very good thing. Nowadays, who knows how such teaching would be twisted. I can only imagine what they might say in Texas about Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, etc.
Thanks very much for the historical linguistics lesson- Slavic edition! I am amazed that you have been able to "ad hoc" attain this degree of knowledge in an area of which you have no professional background. I have always been fascinated with linguistics and had a minor in it in college. A major part of the reason for that was my interest in History and Geography. I have always believed that the dialects and speech characteristics of people are more precise indicators of their personal and social history than any political boundaries or social labelling constructs could be.
I have seen some people argue that whether or not Putin's views of history are correct, what he believes should be taken as the only consideration when dealing with him. I believe that to be a false conclusion. If Putin is in error on his history and geography and culture those errors will eventually manifest in how his actions fail to reconcile with reality. That should, in turn, inform us how he should be viewed and dealt with...
War also has a habit of hardening historical views. I bet if tucker had the same conversation with putin in 2019 or earlier, he would have been much less absolute in some of his remarks
Re the reference to Old Church Slavonic - a South Slavonic language- which looking at the map in green is indeed the area of Serbia, I was reminded of a wonderful article on the old Saker site, and in particular one of the comments as the arguments back and forth ensued ....
From: https://thesaker.is/kosovo-historiography-or-public-opinion-tested-by-ornithology-and-linguistics/
Anonymous on February 14, 2018 · at 12:17 am EST/EDT
In the Chronicle of Nestor, there is a strange passage referring to the ‘Rus’.
“The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians—Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs—drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom”. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gutes, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us”. Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated”
The ‘Rus’ were ‘particular’ Varangians, other than the Varangians who were the Swedes, Angles, Normans, Gutes (Goths). ‘Rus’ were Varangians, but Varangians were not ‘Rus’! Varangians were a ‘motley crew’ (“a roughly organized assembly of individuals of various backgrounds, appearance, and character. Typical examples of motley crews are pirates, rag-tag mercenary bands, companies of ‘merchant adventurers’, ad-hoc fellowships – Varangians may be the same as the ‘Venetoi/Veneti’ of classical sources, notoriously engaged in the amber trade and piracy, lurking on the confines of Slav core territories, from Poland to Veneto). The ‘Rus’ called to reign over the ‘Slavs’ of Kiev were most likely part of the ‘Slovenes’ who founded Novgorod, who arrived there in a northward migration, provoked, according to the Chronicle by the arrival of the ‘Valachians’ in the region of the “Slovens’ (on the Lower Danube), at an uncertain date, which pushed the Slavs northwards.
What if the ‘Rus’ originally alighted from ‘Rascia’, that they were “Rascians’ (Rasciani, Natio Rasciana as Serbs were designated in the Habsburg Monarchy)? What if the ‘Norse’ origin of the ‘Rus’ is an invention of the manic ‘white identity’ movement (which considers that ‘nordic blood’ confers nobility) which seeped from America to Europe (through masonic channels), falsifying the whole European history by exaggerating the role of the Germanics in the ‘building’ of Europe, and bringing much of the horrors which befell Europe in the 20th century?
Were the ‘Varyazy’ real ‘Norwegians’ or the ‘Varangian Imperial Guard’ recruited from the ‘Rus’ after the conversion of Prince Vladimir and the integration of ‘Rus’ into the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’? At a later date the Guard hired some Englishmen. It might come, to the chagrin of the ‘Norse/White’ fanatics, that the Russian history was from the very beginning an almost exclusively Russian affair (a Russian/Byzantine affair, to be more precise). Serbia was part of it. ‘Slavonic’ Orthodoxy was a creation of the far reaching God inspired vision of Patriarch Photios and goes hand in hand with the creation of Orthodox Russia (let’s say, if just for annoying the ‘white’ ‘Ukrainians’, that the Great Principality of Muscovy was also a Byzantine ‘creation’ and not a Tartar one).
The story of the invitation to the Rus is the one I thought everyone knew, and that Kiev belonged to the heart of Russia, but this argument over the Varangians, or Varyazy, who they were and from whence they came, and in particular this reference to the rewrite of histories as a weapon of warfare, so pertinent today, makes me wish for more time to nose around.
I wonder if the language issue is why Belarus was not assimilated into Russia.
Actually, assimilation into Russia would be extremely easy from a linguistic standpoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus#Languages
"Russian is the most common language spoken at home, used by 70% of the population, while Belarusian, the official first language, is spoken at home by 23%. ... The usage of Belarusian in major Belarusian cities is rare. ... According to poet Valzhyna Mort, who grew up in Belarus, the Belarusian language is mocked for its "village sound" and is considered useless in Belarus."
The future is rather grim, much more so than Ukrainian. That doesn't mean there isn't a genuine sense of national identity, but the move toward union is happening.
I am always happy to learn more about history. There is plenty I don't know. However, I feel a little annoyed that the US government has put us regular Americans in the position of having to learn the details of Russian and Eastern European history going back many centuries just to understand what the neocons are doing today and how Putin sees their actions.
Many young Americans today can't tell you who fought in the Revolutionary War, the US Civil War or WW2. But we are supposed to know the details of land around Ukraine 500 years ago? It doesn't make any sense that we have to care more about land on the other side of the world while we have, as a country, so little understanding of our own history. And in terms of present day, we have no clue who the tens of thousands of Chinese men crossing our Southern border are.
The point, I suppose, is that nobody in our government seems to care about our own country. Not even a little.
Everything east of Krakow is chaos.