From: josip@src.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Subject: Re: Serbian language
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:11:34 GMT

In article <498@owl.ukc.ac.uk> dat@ukc.ac.uk (D.A.Turner) writes:
>In response to a reference to a message about "Serbian" (language) I wrote:
>>That's interesting - I wasn't previously aware of a language called Serbian.
>>I had been told it was called Serbo-Croat.
>
>To which victor@jezebel.wustl.edu (Victor Wickerhauser) replies:
>>I think it is reasonable to distinguish a language written in one alphabet
>>from one written in another.
>
>I see, so when Serbo-Croat is written in Cyrillic you call  it  Serbian,
>when  in  the  Roman alphabet you call it Croat.  Sounds rather silly to
>me.  Is English a different language when I use shorthand  to  write  it
>down?
>
>The "instructions" referred to (and included) in the message about fonts
>were in the ROMAN alphabet - so how could they be in Serbian?  According
>to your formulation they were in Croat!

Language is more than just a mere method of communication.  Mr. Turner,
you are in the UK, so let me quote BBC reporter Misha Glenny (from his
book "The Rebirth of History", Penguin Books, 1990, page 131):

"The language issue became intensely political, however, during the
inter-war period, particularly after the abolition of parliamentary
rule in 1929 in favor of direct rule by the Serbian King Alexander.
During the next ten years the kingdom of Yugoslavia developed into
a vehicle for Greater Serbian aspirations.  One of the most important
hallmarks of the Greater Serbian nationalists was their desire to
impose on Croats the Serbian variation of Serbo-Croat, including
the Cyrillic script.  (This would be rather like London insisting
that all Scots speak with English accent and drop local variations
of vocabulary and grammar.)  The experience of the 1930s has ensured
that language remains a seminal political issue for the Croats."

So says Mr. Glenny.  I should point out that his view is that Serbian
and Croatian are in fact the same language, although Serbs use
Cyrillic script and Croats use Latin one.  But, his view is too simple.

There is more to language than just words, and the meaning of what is
being said is deeply colored by the context of Croat and Serb experiences.
To you, in the UK, differences may seem small, but to people over there,
they are enormous.  

Here is what I think: Serbian and Croatian should be considered distinct
languages because this is what the native speakers feel they are.  Both
Serbs and Croats feel the differences are important enough to call their
languages distinct.  If this is the meaning that these languages have
to native speakers, people who claim otherwise are simply engaging
in empty academic arguments.  The words may be similar or even the same,
but the meaning is not.

Here is a test sentence: "Govori srpski da te ceo svet razume!"
To Serbs, it means one thing, to Croats another, and neither meaning would
be exactly described by the literal translation: "Speak Serbian so that
the whole world understands you!".  Similar shades of meaning affect
other sentences, even perfectly innocuous ones.  Instead of simply being a 
means of communication, language creates its own meanings.  

Josip


Newsgroups: comp.text.tex