#354827

Anonymous
Quote:
1. Concerning Hochdeutsch:


    [li]

Standard German originated not as a traditional dialect of a specific region, but as a written language, developed over a process of several hundred years, in which writers tried to write in a way that was understood in the largest area.

Even that written language started from  somewhere ie from:
When Martin Luther translated the Bible, he based his translation mainly on the bureaucratic standard language used in Saxony (sächsische Kanzleisprache), also known as Meißner-Deutsch (German from the city of Meissen). This language was based on Eastern Upper and Eastern Central German dialects and preserved much of the grammatical system of Middle High German (unlike the spoken German dialects in Central and Upper Germany, which had already at that time begun to lose the genitive case and the preterit). Roman Catholics rejected Luther's translation initially and tried to create their own Catholic standard (gemeines Deutsch) — which, however, differed from "Protestant German" only in some minor details. Each literary language in history of world was based on some vernacular, Church Slavonic, whic we used then was based on speach of long time extinct Thesaloniki Slavs with strong admixture of vernaculare Russian and Ukrainian, because it was developed there.

Quote:
Ijekavian, jekavian, ekavian, ikavian has brought us nothing more than 'raskol', if we use the argument of efficiency then some of that wise-heads supporting the reform should have unified the language, not create 3 or 4 different ones, that differ solely in one letter.

Nobody created Ijekavian and ekavian, people allready speaked that why. It was mistake of Stojan Novaković who introduced ekavian in literary standard, but he did not invented, people east of Morava, people in Vojvodina and speakers of Timok-Niš dialect allready were speaking that way.

Quote:
The church maintained the purity of our language as much as it could, now in the last 150 years we see it desecrated because some peasants saw themselves capable of reforming the language to their needs, too lazy to learn their own ancestral tongue, erasing heritage for more efficiency.

For the last time. It was not our language it was language of extinct Thessaloniki Slavs in Russian redaction, our Church did not preserve that language it came to us with books from Russia. Before that we had our own redaction of that language (under influence of Serbian vernaculare) as language of literature. Legal matters and personal corespondence was written in vernaculare, with certain admixture of literary SerboSlavonic (Serbian redaction of Old Church Slavonic). It was language of our literatutre but not language of our ancestors, only smal educated elite knew that language. Scribes in small cities and priests in willages offten mixed it with vernaculare because they did notverry well (same thing happened all over the Europe in Byzantine Empire with Byzantine Greek towards Modern Greek, in Spain for exmaple Latin and Castellano, in Russia Church Slavonic and Middle Russian). Serbian language which we speak was more or less same in 14th century (according to some researches reflexions of yat accured even earlier).

Quote:
3. I do not have a high opinion about Croats, but concerning the language, they have my utmost respect. 'č and ć' is understandable, just reflect which words (of which etymology)

Croatian language policy is even bigger mess than Serbian IMHO. They could not decide whether to follow phonological or etimological morphonological ortography, they use standard language with accentuation very small proportion of Croats acctually use, smae goes with using ijekavian standard while they are mainy ikavians end ekavians etc etc. Concerning ч/ћ differenitaition it is absolutle untrue:
voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate (/tɕ/) is present in Polish, Russian and Serbian (as far as I know). They wrote it different but it is same consonat.

Quote:
2. Of course neologisms aren't archaic. Vodopad (neologism) > Slap (archaic), but while adopting foreign words, why do not adapt the Slavic ones? I would rather see a use of Slavic neologism (all words were neologies when they first appeared) than adopting a foreign non-Slavic vocabulary. 'The Language' is not some fu[size=1pt]'[/size]cked up car that got old, and has to be repaired with spare parts from England, Turkey or Germany, to be more efficient. It is our SLAVIC LANGUAGE, the highest, holiest, most valuable heritage we as Slavs have. Argument of efficiency is against my belief. The church maintained the purity of our language as much as it could, now in the last 150 years we see it desecrated because some peasants saw themselves capable of reforming the language to their needs, too lazy to learn their own ancestral tongue, erasing heritage for more efficiency.

There is no single Slavic language for at least 1500 years. But to continue, you would be surprised how many words of Proto-Slavic language were borowed from other languages (церкы, букы, and хоргувъ). If you go to purge foreign words from slavic languages you will criple them. It is allways good to have your own word, but you should be carefull in forging one. It is no slow proces allways, we had шрафцигер first latter came одвијач.

Slavorum

17 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Stella C.
  • Lyutenitsa™
  • KratΩs
  • LCaine
  • Adam's Song
  • Vuk