First of all let me declare my background: Croatian living in Australia since before the (1990-1995) wars.

I am also bemused by some of the language policies that have been implemented in the ex-Yugoslav countries in recent times. Esp. the reputed need to resort to translators between Serb & Croat leaders at some of the peace talks in mid 1990s.

It is true that people from all over the former Yugoslavia can understand each other without too much difficulty. Quite apart from the literary standards, there is a chain of dialects which are similar to each other, though very different from the ones at the opposite end of the chain.

To give an example, my native dialect is the Shtokavian Ikavian, which is spoken in Dalmatia, and some areas of Bosnia and in Hercegovina. Having said that, I have an accent specific to my town, and anyone from the neighbouring towns would be able to tell where I come from.

I have no great trouble understanding either the Croatian literary standard (based on Shtokavian Ijekavian) or the Serbian literary standard (based on Shtokavian Ekavian). But that is not to say that I would be able to readily understand natives of Zagreb or of Belgrade speaking their local dialects. Similarly, it would take me more time to get used to some chakavian dialects, kajkavian (which merge with Slovenian at some point), and south Serbian dialects (which merge with Macedonian and Bulgarian).

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language for more information on what I'm talking about.

However, I think it is important to respect the wishes of the people involved when we describe their language. Historically, Croatian and Serbian have had very different literary standards - enough to mark them as separate languages (plays written by talented Dubrovnik playwrights had to be translated when performed for Serbs in Vojvodina). Differences were not only in pronunciation, but also vocabulary, and grammar. Not to mention the different script (latin for Croat and cyrillic for Serb).

Since cyrillic is not taught in Croatia anymore (Serbian cyrillic is as much a foreign script in Croatia as is Bulgarian or Ukrainian cyrillic), a Croatian child would not be able to carry on written correspondence with a Serbian.

When I went to school in communist Yugoslavia, the subject I learnt was called Croatian. In Serbia they would have learnt Serbian.

So, to lump the languages spoken in ex-Yugoslavia as something called Serbocroatian is incorrect and disrespectful to the native speakers. How is this different to the Serbo-Croato-Slovene that was allegedly spoken in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats & Slovenes? It is a bit like saying that "Soviet" was spoken in the ex-USSR.

Following the same logic, you would need a single name for the language spoken in India and Pakistan (Hindurdu?), in Czech and Slovak Republics (Czechoslovakian?) and in Denmark and Norway.

There are many regions of the world where dialect continua exist, but boundaries must be chosen, and one way of doing so is following the practices and respecting the wishes of the people involved. Otherwise, there would be no separate Romance languages, you could just lump all the dialects spoken from Sicily to Lisbon and from Normandy to the Alps under the heading "Romance", or better still - "Latin".

So, if Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Dalmatians, Istrians, Vojvodjani, Hercegovci, Bunjevci, Sokci, Sandzaklije... develop different standards, all distinct from one another, who is to deny them the identity of languages, and to express themselves as a people.

Thank you for a well-expressed and on the whole reasonable comment. I must take issue with this, however:

It is a bit like saying that "Soviet" was spoken in the ex-USSR.

It's not at all like that. The USSR had languages of many different families, clearly distinct, and it would have been madness to lump them together. It is much more like lumping Hindi and Urdu together as Hindustani, as was in fact done before the separation of the countries; even after decades of determined separation, the normal everyday spoken forms are mutually intelligible and can be considered a single language. There was of course no "Serbo-Croato-Slovene," because Slovene is a quite distinct language, but the insistence on "Serbian," "Croatian," and "Bosnian" (and doubtless "Montenegrin" once Montenegro separates from Serbia) is a purely political one with minimal linguistic justification. Mind you, I'm not denying the right of the Serbs, Croats, and so on to call their language whatever they like, and even to make strenuous efforts to differentiate them so that eventually they may genuinely be different languages (though that seems perverse to me -- why decrease mutual comprehension?); I am merely pointing out that from a linguistic point of view it has no scientific basis.

Mr Hat

Thank very much for your comment. Let me first say keep up the good work. I'm a regular reader of your web site and look forward to reading it every time I hop on to the internet.

The point of my post was not to deny the fact that the "the normal everyday spoken forms are mutually intelligible and can be considered a single language". To do so would be ridiculous and would go against the plain truth.

What I was trying to get at is that the English speaking linguistic community should be recognising the new realities on the ground. By calling the language Serbo-Croat, one is already 15 years out of date.

To give an example: No there is no Serbo-Croat-Slovene language. But that is exactly what the language was called during the Kingdom of SCS days. I will spare you the details of when and how the Serbo-Croat name was first used - these can be found on many websites dealing with the issue. Suffice it to say that the language has been around longer than the name. Some of the names used for my language in the past (before the term Serbo-Croat) were:
Slovinski (Slav)
Dalmatinski (Dalmatian)
Iliriski (Illyrian)
and of course - Hrvatski (Croatian)

These were all correct names for the same language at a particular time. My point is that even though it might be hard to call something by a name other than that you learnt as a child, it is important to use the name that is most proper to the time. Serbo-Croat" will offend not only Croats, but also to Serbs and to Bosnians. I still own a Serbocroatian-English dictionary. But that was published before the (1990-1995) war, and you will be hard pressed to find anything by the same title published in the last ten years.

It is not an issue of having an English name for something which is called differently in the native tongue. The best example of this is German - Deutsch.

It is more like calling it by a name that is correct by reference to the pressent. So, the language that was called Siamese in the 18th century is now properly called Thai. Similarly, it would be improper to call it Eskimo (or even better 'Esquimaux') when in fact we now call it Inuit.

So that brings us to the question: what do we call that language which we used to call Serbocroatian? I don't have a ready answer, except to conform to the realities on the ground, and accept that no (or not many) native speakers would call it Serbocroatian. Instead they would call it Croatian, Bosnian, or Serbian. Or to use the handy abbreviation used in the Hague Tribunal - BCS.
thanks

If Serbia and Montenegro go their separate ways (as seems inevitable along with the rise of a fourth literary standard) I'd say Yugoslav (I prefer the spelling Jugoslav but I realize that's a minority opinion).

Croatian Jugoslav
Serbian Jugoslav
Bosnian Jugoslav
Montenegrin Jugoslav

It works for me, but the reaons it works for me mean that speakers of the languages involved will probably reject it.

Failing that go back to Shtovakian, Kajvakian, Chakavian (or just Shtovak, Kajvak and Chakav?)assume that the Shtovak, Kajkav and Chakav differences are greater than the Ijekav, Ekav etc. differences.

So that the official language of Croatia is
Croatian Shtovak

and the official language of Serbia is
Serbian Shtovak

(I have no idea if Bosnian or Montenegrin standards are/wouold be also Shtovak or something else)

Again the speakers involved would probably reject any proposal that suggests the underlying unity of the languages involved.

"who is to deny them the identity of languages, and to express themselves as a people"

Who indeed? But they should remember that choices have consequences and recognize the dangers of microsizing their languages out of meaningful existence, especially in an area with proven colonial appeal (as opposed to remote and chilly Scandinavia which few non-natives have every paid much attention to).

FWIW, I recently toyed with the idea of seeing if I could acquire a working reading knowledge of Serbo-Croatian (the name used by the textbook I have, the the emphasis is on Serbian Shtovak (Ekavian) though other varieties are touched on. Then I decided not to, since my interest level isn't high enough to justify the effort to learn such a small language (I have nothing against small languages as long as there's some new aspect for me, but I already know a Slavic language and Serbian (or Croatian or Bosnian) just don't have enough bang for the buck on their own.

A quick search seems to turn up the information (which could of course well be wrong) that the the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin standards are all Shtovakian, so I renew my proposal to use Shtovak as a cover term for all four with the appropriate national designation preceding it.

So that brings us to the question: what do we call that language which we used to call Serbocroatian? I don't have a ready answer

Well, that is the question, isn't it? I don't call it Serbo-Croatian out of some perverse attachment to the past or desire to offend former Yugoslavs, but because that's the only name I know for it. If I'm talking about Croatia, I'm happy to refer to "Croatian," and likewise for the other countries involved, but I'm much more likely to be talking about the language as a language, a particular South Slavic language distinct from Slovenian and Bulgarian, and I can't call it "Croatian" without offending Serbs and Bosnians (and likewise for the other possibilities). So I call it Serbo-Croatian and offend everybody. BCS is a possible solution, and if it ever becomes generally accepted I'll be glad to use it, but at the moment nobody outside the Hague Tribunal knows what it means. Again, thank you for making your point so fairly and politely; frankly, I was expecting someone to come in and flame me with nationalist fervor (which may of course still happen).

Michael: Um, that's Shtokavian (and likewise for the other forms). You're getting them mixed up with Slovakian.

I suggest "the language formerly known as Serbo-Croatian," represented by an unpronounceable symbol.

"Um, that's Shtokavian"

ARRRGGHHHH!!! I knew I would screw it up. I still think it's as good a designation as any (esp. since it's the basis of all the literary languages).

Serbian Shtokavian
Croatian Shtokavian etc.

Or perhaps combine that with ikavian, ekavian (etc) as follows:

Ijekavo-Shtokavian
Ekavo-Shtokavian etc.

But again, I think it's not the name that's offensive, it's the idea that is, namely that the languages in question are essentially the same language (and could easily enough be united in a common literary standard that still allowed for and respected regionalisms). I suspect that that any name that contains that idea will be rejected out of hand. Not the wisest choice in my opinion, but not mine to make.

Sercrobosnian.

Boscroserbian.

Serboscroat.

(Hmm, sounds familiar...)

I think we just shouldn't call them anything at all until they all learn to get along with each other.</prig> ;-)

I came along late, but it was a very interesting discussion.

Zixt mentioned Scandinavia. Just for the record, weird linguistic nationalism does not necessarily lead to bad things. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian could easily have a common standard language, but they don't. They have four, and Norway alone has two (Bokmal and Nynorsk.) But nothing very bad came of it.

True enough. But they're too busy keeping warm to get into trouble.

During my last tour in Bosnia-Hercegovina (03-04), we took to calling the language "BCS" for "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian."

Thus we quietly and diplomatically did an end-run around the polite fiction that the three groups had distinct languages.

JJM

There is an interesting article explaining this issue at http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/Vij192.nsf/AllWebDocs/+DaliborBrozovicPRVOLICEJEDNINE (if you can read Croatian).

The article explains current Croatian linguistic terminology. Croatian linguists use the term srednjojuznoslavenski (Central South Slav) for the diasystem (as opposed to the standard literary languages). The standard literary languages are validly called by their national appellation - Croatian, Serbian, and Bosniac respectively. The relevant passage is:

The term Serbocroatian (and other similar terms: Croatoserbian, Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, 'Serbian or Croatian', 'Croatian or Serbian') is unacceptable.

Firstly, the term refers to Croatians and Serbs only - and not to the other peoples that speak it.

Secondly, the term is polyvalent - 'Serbocroatian' connotes a Serb Croatian (Croatian as spoken by Serbs?) and not a Croat Croatian, 'Serbo-Croatian' connotes a part-Serbian and part-Croatian hybrid, while 'Serbian or Croatian' is an either-or term.

Thirdly, the term pays homage to the forced unitarist (ie. Great Serb) language policy practised in both Yugoslavias (ie. the pre-WW2 kingdom, and the post-WW2 communist republic).

Thanks for translating that. I think "Central South Slav" would be a fine term, although I doubt it will catch on in English.

When I read this article I throw away the papers (I find New York Times a paper with 98% of lies in it!!!)
I must say this artical is rediculus! (It also omits a lot of 'details' which makes it idiotic but which were in the newspaper in the first place.) Are we soon going to say that people in Belgrade speak Belgradian, and people from Sarajevo Sarajevian!? Or those from Zagreb Zagrebian!? I think, if certein people continue to think this way, not only is all this going to happen but soon they will say that every village in ex Yugoslavia speak their own language!!!!!!!!

Get to your sences people!!!!