Template talk:Southslavlang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do all dialects, mentioned here, belong to Central South Slavic diasystem? Are you sure? Kubura 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian Cyrillic

It is based on the Serbian Alphabet but the language is not Central South Slavic. Alex 202.10.89.28 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torlak

Đorđe and Anton, you guys should come up with a consensus on whether Torlak is Western or Transitional. It doesn't surprise me that Pavle Ivić and Stefan Mladenov would say what they did - one need only look at their surnames. So argue your points here please. BalkanFever 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Torlakian dialect possesses all characteristics of the Western South Slavonic dialects. and therefore is Western South Slavonic. The only thing that connects it with the Eastern South Slavonic group, and other Balkan languages, is the appearance of the so-called "balkanisms" in this dialect, however that’s not a criteria to pronounce it "transitional." In origin, Torlakian is clearly of Western South Slavonic origin even though it belongs to the Balkansprachbund along with the Eastern South Slavonic dialects. Below I shall cite Pavle Ivić, one of the most renowned Yugoslav dialectologists, explaining the Western South Slavonic origin of the Torlakian dialect, and I also expect either Stefan Mladenov’s arguments to be properly cited as well, or I’ll return Torlakian under Western South Slavic in the template. Since Anton suggests that Torlakian is actually closer to the Eastern South Slavonic group, I expect him to clarify what linguistic features exactly make it closer to Bulgarian than Serbo-Croatian. --George D. Božović (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"§ 125. The dialects of the Prizren—Timok [i.e. Torlakian] zone have evolved from the easternmost group of Štokavian dialects. Their Serbo-Croatian origin is clearly testified by those characteristics given in § 5 [that is, the characteristics of the Western South Slavonic dialects also present in Torlakian], and their belonging to the Štokavian dialectal group is manifested through the presence of Štokavian innovations such as *skj, *stj, *zgj, *zdj > št, žđ; čr- > cr-, vь > u-, and vs- > sv-, and on the other hand, through the lack of innovations that occur in Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects. The difference between these dialects and their southeastern and eastern neighbouring dialects of the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages, was clear and strong even during the time of Slavonic migrations to the Balkans (§ 5). However, differences between Torlakian and Štokavian were even not present at all at first. These dialects were barely distinct from the present-day Kosovo—Resava dialect (which, after all, is still lively connected to this dialectal group, cf. § 101). The only significant phonetic specific was the change l̩ > lu in a few cases, however only existent in Prizren—South Morava area. It is very specific that yat here, like elsewhere in Štokavian dialects, before being rendered became closer than vowel /ɛ/, which is supported by the state in Krašovan dialect, which originates from this area (§ 220)."

"§ 126. The central event in the later evolution of the dialects from the Prizren—Timok zone was the appearance of the so-called balkanisms, characteristics specific for other Balkan languages, Slavonic and non-Slavonic. (The significance of these features is pretty high, giving that none of the mentioned Prizren—Timok archaisms makes an absolute boundary toward the standard Štokavian type: the reflex of semivowel is preserved as a distinct phoneme in many speeches of the Zeta—Sjenica dialect as well, the syllabic l in almost all Prizren—Timok speeches has evolved into /u/ after all in a few examples, and the final -l hasn’t been left unaltered on the whole area of this dialectal zone.) The lack of pitch oppositions (of quality as well as quantity), the analytic comparison, and the doubled use of personal pronouns is also found in the Greek, Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian languages. The same can be applied to omitting the infinitive. The analytic principle exists in Bulgarian and Macedonian declensions, too. Modern Greek, Romanian, and Albanian declensions show these simplifications as well, and tend to use a reduced number of grammatical cases. The usage of the three postpositive pronouns is common in most of the Macedonian dialects, and in other Macedonian dialects and the huge majority of Bulgarian ones the true postpositive article has evolved. The true origin of each of these characteristics is not clear yet, but it is certain that they have been transmitted from one Balkan language into another. It is clear that these balkanisms in the Prizren—Timok dialect have not evolved spontaneously, but have rather been brought from the neighbouring languages. [...] After all, it is clear that the dialects of the Prizren—Timok zone have entered the Balkansprachbund not sooner than the 15th century. Therefore, the main isoglosses that connect the Prizren—Timok dialects with the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages are chronologically only secondary in relation to those that show their connections with other Štokavian dialects. Thus they, even though they may be important for the typological characterization of the dialects, yet mean nothing when it comes to their origin. (Although the structural phenomena may be linguistically important, it cannot be used as a criteria for defining the connections between language types. [...] If only structural criteria was taken in count, one would have acquired most absurd conclusions, e.g. that Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects are closer to Aromanian and Romanian than Slavonic languages.)"

— Pavle Ivić, "Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika" (The Dialectology of the Serbo-Croatian language). --George D. Božović (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Stefan Mladenov (Geschichte der Bulgarichen Sprache, Berlin - Leipzig, История на българския език, София 1979, с. 360-362) these dilects are transitional between Bulgarian and Eastern South Slavic languages. Also he comments some similarities with Ucrainian languge. Mladenov considers these dialects as more closer to Bulgarian language, than Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) . Similar are the statements of Benjo Tsonev, Rangel Bozhkov, the russian Afanasii Selishtev etc.--JSimin (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but please state which linguistic features exactly make Torlakian closer to Bulgarian than Serbo-Croatian? Not even Mladenov and other linguists can simply say that; are there any proofs, any references? --George D. Božović (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Ivić in his "Dialectology" (§ 5) lists the respective Western South Slavonic, i.e. Serb(o-Croat)ian, features of the Torlakian dialects. For example, Torlakian has *ъ = *ь, *ǫ > u (as in "ruka"), *vь- > u- ("udovica"), *tj > ʨ (as in "sveća/svijeća"), *čr- > cr- ("crn"), vs- > sv- ("sve"), and so on — and all these are typical Western South Slavonic features. Eastern South Slavonic, including Bulgarian, has distinct reflexes of the semivowels (*ъ and *ь), *ǫ > ъ or a (as in Mac. "raka"), *vь- > v- ("vdovica"), *tj > št (as in Bulg. "svešt"), and čr- and vs- unaltered ("črn", "vse"), respectively. So what makes Torlakian closer to the Eastern group then, when it possesses all those features which actually separate it from the Eastern South Slavonic group, reflecting its Western South Slavonic origin? Please name what linguistic features exactly make it transitional and closer to the Eastern South Slavonic dialects rather than just simply claiming, "Torlakian is transitional, someone said it is closer to Bulgarian, and also resembles Ukrainian a little bit", will you? --George D. Božović (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope this explanation of the Western South Slavonic features of Torlakian is pretty satisfactory, right? --George D. Božović (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that there is necessity to explain the oppinions of these linguists who consider the Torlak dialects as more closer to the Eastern South Slavonic group. One of the reasons - here isn't a court who will decide whether they are Bulgarian/Macedonian, Serbian or Transitional. The fact is that these prominent authors have this oppinion and they argue it. In the relevant article and its discussion page we can concentrate to the essence of the concrete arguments. For me is very clear that the grammar of my own dialect is not Serbian (the lack of the cases (only remainders as in some other BG linguistic structures), the articals etc), (also - ъ (дън, овън, едън, овъс, петъл, старъц, лъсън..), -l in the final (бел not бео, петъл, not петао...) etc., etc.), byt there is not important my or your oppinion. Important are the facts:

1. Some linguistics consider these dialects as Bulgarian (on the base of the arguments, part of which I quoted above);
2. Some linguistics consider them as Serbian (on the base of the arguments, part of which you quoted above);
3. Some linguistics consider them as Transitional [1].

Ofcource, these 3 points are not so categorically defended by all authors. As I wrote, some of them have important nuances (for example Mladenov - Transitional, but Bulgarian). However I know that you will not deny that there are such oppinions. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you’re right. It seems I forgot this is Wikipedia after all, and started arguing myself. :)

However, you’ll notice that lack of cases and postpositive articles also appear in other Balkan languages as well — Romanian, Albanian, Greek, Macedonian — and may not necessarily mean that Torlakian dialects are exclusively Bulgarian. On the other hand, the semivowel (ъ) also appears in various Serbo-Croatian dialects, and is a phoneme in some Zeta—Sanjak speeches as well. That may not have anything to do with Bulgarian, but would rather show that some Serbian dialects have also been included into the Balkansprachbund processes, whereas such other Torlak features, like "ruka" (not "rъka"), "udovica" (not "vdovica"), "sveća" (not "svešt"), "crn" (not "črn"), "sve" (not "vse") etc. clearly show that these dialects cannot be Eastern South Slavonic but essentially Štokavian. --George D. Božović (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with this POV. The similarities with Eastern, Bulgarian-Macedonian group are accidental phenomenons, but the similarities with Serbo-Croation group are basical. But why exactly these "serbian" dialects have exactly these features? Maybe they are not only Serbian? :). Р.S. "crn" (not črn) we can notice and in the other Bulgarian dialectical regions outside of the Torlak area. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)