Turkish ada (island)

Posted October 12, 2009 by Душан Вукотић
Categories: Comparative Linguistics


Read the rest of this post »

Łobuz vs. Lupež

Posted October 11, 2009 by Душан Вукотић
Categories: Comparative Linguistics, Slavonic languages


Originally Posted by sokol View Post
But łobuz don't looks Slavic to me – and I can't see a Germanic or Romance root in this word either (if anything then the latter – Latin "lupus – wolf" probably??); Baltic is a possible but I wouldn't consider it very likely.
Pity, but I can only guess here.

Here is what Brückner said about łobuz:

(Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, p. 310)

łobuzie (15. wiek), 'zarosłe', łabuzie, łobozg, 'zielsko, chwasty'; »w błocie, łabuziu i trzcinie*, »lichym łabuziskiem*; słowo dziś za­ pomniane, ocalało w nazwie łobuza, 'ulicznika', łobuzować (się). Postać zmienna, tak co do pnia, jak i co do przyrostka, np. Marcin z Urzę­ dowa pisze: »w Labuziu* (t.j . ła­ buziu), W. Potocki: » rzucane w łobazie dziecko*, »grzechów łobazy*. Słowo istnieje tylko u nas i na Rusi, tam oznacza i wszelakie 'przy­ bory z plecionek'/ a wkońcu i całe 'budy, kramy', łabaznik 'handlarz zbożem czy mąką'. Nazwy: Łoboz; Łobzów, Łobżenica. Łobuz o 'uliczniku' całkiem dowolne (por. lampart). Pień łab-, łob- (por. wyżej łabaj?) znamy zresztą z serb. i czes. lábati, 'chłeptać, łykać', słowień. lábotati, 'paplać'; rus. łaboz, 'pochlebca', łabzit', 'schlebiać'; cerk. łobzati, czę­ stotliwe łobyzati, 'całować'.

As much as I can understand Polish, Brückner says that łobuz means 'hooligan, rascal, a street urchin' (cf. Slvn. hlapec 'urchin', Serb. klipan). This sounds to me as if it is close to Serbian lopuža/lupež 'scamp, rascal, thief' and these two words (łobuz and lopuža) may be closely related. It could possible be somehow connected to Latin lupus (Brückner mentioned lampart 'leopard'?). He also mentions Serbian and Czech lábati 'slurp, gulp', but I couldn't find that word neither in Czech nor in Serbian; althogh there is a Serbian word lapati 'slurp' (from halapljiv 'piggish, voracious', halapljivac 'glutton', h/alav 'greedy', po-hlepan 'greedy') and that word(s) may be linked to lopuža/lupež 'rogue, thief, rascal'. It also seems that Serbian lapati 'slurp' and lapiti 'steal' are closely related to Greek κλέπτω 'to steal'.

Finally, Brückner compares Russian laboz/laboz 'flatterer, sycophant', but I think it can hardly be directly related to Polish łobuz, albeit, for example, Serbian laskati 'flatter' (from oblizati, lizati 'lick') appears to be related to lisica 'fox' and lasica 'weasel'.

I forgot to mention that Serbian ala (hala 'dragon, monster, demon'), possible from alav/halav or halapljiv 'greedy', might be the same "little monster" as Yiddish lobus. Ala is an extremely voracious creature that eats people and whatever it finds in its neighborhood.

Otvet vs. Advise

Posted October 10, 2009 by Душан Вукотић
Categories: Comparative Linguistics


Read the rest of this post »

Arabic jabal

Posted October 3, 2009 by Душан Вукотић
Categories: Comparative Linguistics


Read the rest of this post »

The Ethnicities in the Balkans

Posted September 13, 2009 by Душан Вукотић
Categories: Comparative Linguistics, History


image_alexander

Alexander the Great and questions on Macedonian Language

Until the end of WWII there has never been any Slavic tribe/ethnicity with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.

Old Bulgarian was a Turkic not Slavic language. In fact, Bulgars hadn’t existed as Slavs and their language hadn’t been Slavic/Slavonic before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum’s Bulgars (a Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/Serbian tribes, were slavicized.

On the other hand, Old Slavonic became the official language of Bulgarian church and state in the end of the 893, at the Preslav council; and, as we can clearly see, it happened 30 years after the Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (863)!

Historically, it is indisputable that the region of of the Greek Macedonia was populated by the Serbs (the first half of the 7th century when the emperor Heraclius of Byzantium invited the Serbs to settle in the provinces of Salonica; later on, the town of Servia near Thessaloniki was known as the capital of the Otoman sanjak of Serfije [Servia/Serbia]).

It is well known that Torlakian is a transition zone between Serbian and Macedonian/Bulgarian, but if it shares as many features with the latter as the Wikipedia article suggests, the question arises, whether it is fair to see Torlakian as a Serbian dialect at all.

Maybe this will help you to understand what has happened:

-The Serbian name Torlak means “one who speaks neither Serbian nor Bulgarian”.

It is the reason why I said in my earlier post that the “Macedonian” is on the half way between Serbian and Bulgarian.

There is still a large population of Serbs (Central Serbia for instance, Niš) who talk without using the case inflection: “od Niš” ‘from Niš’ instead of “od Niša”; u Niš ‘in Niš’ instead of “u Nišu”; “pred Niš” ‘in front of Niš’ instead “pred Nišom” etc.

There are only two meanings of Torlak in Serbian (V. Karadžić): 1) torlak: ”ein Grosssprecher, gloriosus, braggart”. 2) Torlak: ”čovjek koji niti govori čisto Srpski ni Bugarski” (the person who doesn’t speak clearly both Serbian and Bulgarian).

In Bulgaria and Turkey there are meanings of Torlak like simpleton, boor, yokel. And, AFAIK no one calls the Torlaks dogs; I wonder where did you find that?

Of course you are quite correct, Yusuf. Dushan likes to make these categorical statements without any regards to different existing usages.

What “usage” has to do with the fact that the Old Bulgarian (Slavic) has never existed? Thirty years after the Cyril and Methodius finished their job on O.Ch.-Slavonic, Bulgarians proclaimed the Old Slavonic!!! (not Old Bulgarian) as the official language of the church and the state (Preslav council 893.).

Once again; 30 years passed after the codification of the Slavonic language (SLAVONIC not Bulgarian!) by Cyril and Methodius, until the Bulgarians adopted the Slavonic language (once more, SLAVONIC not Bulgarian). Imagine that someone decide to name the Classical Latin as “Classical Italian”. Of course, nobody would ever accept a similar foolishness; but the same “yardstick” should be applied in case of the Old Church Slavonic, should it not?

Even if you did not put “(slavic)” in your sentence it would still be quite clear from the context that you speak of an old Slavic language called by many linguists “Old Bulgarian”.

Again, what if the Classical Latin was called by “many linguists” – Classical Italian? Who would authorize such a stupidity?

In English, “Old Bulgarian” is another name for Old Church Slavonic, and it is preferred by Slavicists because it does not give the impression that the language is ancestral to all the extant Slavonic languages.

You forget that the Old Church Slavonic was originally codified for the West Slavs (Great Moravia, nowadays Czechs and Slovaks). Old Church Slavonic was an “artificial” language, compiled in such a manner that it was equally distant and equally close to any existing Slavic vernacular in those days.

These people were Slavs who considered themselves Macedonians. How does this square with your claim about Tito?

You’ve got it wrong. I.M.R.O. was an organization of the Macedonian Bulgars which in the late 19th and in the beginning of 20th century tried to create autonomous Macedonia with the final goal of unification with Bulgaria.

At that time and all the way to the end of WWII nobody in Macedonia considered himself to be an ethnic Macedonian; the Slavs there were either Serbs or Bulgarian.

I think you should read more carefully. The Bulgarian Macedonians are in fact Bulgars in the Greek province of Macedonia under Ottoman rule. Rebecca West was obviously thinking about the Macedonian Bulgars, because Macedonia in those times was a part of Turkish Empire.

The seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII

Per Rønne is absolutely right. Tito’s regime made that artificial ethnic group (Macedonians) and artificial language (Macedonian) out of thin air. In a similar way Tito made up the Montenegrins. Finally, Tito’s atheistic(!) regime also created the only “ethnicity” in the world, which was based on the religious affiliation – Muslims.

Before the WWII, the modern “Macedonians” in FYROM were either Serbs (a majority of population) or Bulgars; the land of today’s Montenegro was populated by the Serbs of Orthodox and Muslim faith and a few Albanians; while Bosnia’s population was in the most part constituted of Serbs – Muslims, Catholic and Orthodox.

My father is much older than those FYROM Macedonians and Montenegrins; and I am almost 50 years older than the new-composed Bosniaks.

Your father is much older than the woman who lived in Macedonia in the 1930s and wrote about it in 1942? He’s older than the Macedonian Slavic activists about whom she wrote, who were active in 1893? Well, if he doesn’t remember them, then that’s a problem with his memory, since the documentation exists.

Read more carefully; she was writing about the Bulgarian movement in the Greek part of Macedonia (IMRO), then occupied by the Ottomans, which main goal was the unification with Bulgaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Macedonian_Revolutionary_Organi… […The organization was founded in 1893 in Ottoman Thessaloniki by a small band of anti-Ottoman Macedono-Bulgarian revolutionaries, who considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and claimed all of its inhabitants “Macedonians”, no matter their religion or ethnicity.[3] Although in practice their followers were primarily of Bulgarian origins.[4]…

How is that different from what you feel that Tito did? Presumably the people in Macedonia in 1945, who Tito declared to be “Macedonians”, included Greeks and Turks who were still there, right? What you just quoted above is a far cry from “thin air”.

In this case Macedonia is taken as a name of a region and the people there were named Macedoinians in accordance with that region (the Macedonians was a regional name); but ethnicity is one thing and regional name is quite another. For instance, if you proclaimed the Virginian (someone mentioned it earlier, maybe Per) ethnicity, would it not be from “thin air”? Once again, IMRO (VMRO) was the Bulgarian nationalist movement and their main goal was the incorporation of the whole region of Macedonia into the Bulgarian state. http://tinyurl.com/nwt26b

from what I know about Yugoslav politics, and I had interpreted for a > mixed turkish – albanian couple (both knew turkish as well as the other languages of the area) those that spoke macedonian (or what is now called macedonian I don’t want togetinto that discussion) as their native language, where of Macedonian “nationality” and the rest the nationality > of their own ethnic group, merely residents of Macedonia. I’ll defer to Dušan if I’m wrong.

I am not sure if I understand you well, but nationality (in the Western sense of that word) is one thing and ethnicity is another. As Turks/Albanians these people may be the FYROM nationals, but their ethnicity is not “Macedonian” and their native language (mother tongue) cannot be the “Macedonian”, but Turkish or Albanian, respectively.

Of course, during these six decades of the existence of FYROM the ethnic “Macedonian identity” has been built in a significant degree, especially after being fueled by the “old” myth of the “Slavic Macedonians” and the greatest conqueror in history – Alexander the Great (Macedonian!!!)… And who wouldn’t like to be a “cousin” of Alexander the Great? 🙂

I think the Catholics were called Croatians.

Before the WWII the majority of Bosnian Catholics considered themselves either Serbs or their were undecisive about their ethnic affiliation. The same was in Dalmatia and Slavonia. If you want to find out more about the creation of the Croats read the book “When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans”, by John Fine.

In the beginning Croats were a small Slovenian tribe who spoke a kaikavian language (Croatian) that was a transitional link between the Serbian and Slovenian language. In the end of the XIX century, the Catholic Slavs in the territory of today’s Croatia, didn’t know what name to choose for themselves (Slavonians, Slovins, Illyrians etc.; as Catholics they didn’t want to identify themselves with the Serbs anymore). Finally, they decided to name their nation and, consequently, their “ethnicity” in accordance with the name of a small Slavic tribe (Croats), situated on the border of present Slovenia.

Also, the major division amongst the Slav Balkan peoples seem to be whether they were Christened from Roma or Nea Roma [Constantinople].

Yes, the Serbs and the former Serbs (Orthodox, Catholics and Muslims; Serbs, Croats and the new-composed Bosniaks) were fighting the last Balkan war (1991-95).

that being said, Bosniak (in turkish bo*sh*nak) was a recognized community in ottoman times. what seems to have taken place as I gather from your post is that the Bosniaks differentiated themsleves from other slavic Muslims, as defined in Tito era Yugoslavia, and revived the previous name for themselves. I will check if “Croatian:” is mentioned in ottoman sources (I will have to search through Evliya C,elebi’s travelogue), turkish hIrvat (ottoman turkish *kh*Irvat).

I generally agree, but in that case people have to find an unused name for themselves instead of stealing the one already existed. Bošnjak is one of old Serbian family names and there are thousands and thousands of Serbs who bear that surname for centuries. Bošnjak or Bosnian is the man who is born and reside in Bosnia regardless of its ethnic origin. It was just a local/regional name as Crnogorac (Montenegriner) or Makedonac (Macedonian); i.e. without any ethnic connotation. In the Middle Ages, the Bosnian king Stefan (Stephen) Tvrtko was crowned as the “King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seacoast”. And all the other medieval Bosnian rulers (prior to Ottoman invasion) were “kings of Serbs” (only ethnic determinant ever mentioned in those times).

BTW I didn’t think Bosnian independence was a good idea, as it itself is a multi-ethnic community. but boşnak also had the specialized meaning of the serbian spekaing Bogomils who became muslim in exchange for certain privilages. thus, there is a historical basis for them to consider themselves a seperate community.

Bogumilism (Bogomili, Patareni) was just the one of the Christian’s sects, this time in the bosom of the Christian Orthodox Church, which was influenced by the Manichaean dualistic idea of the origin of the world. As you can see, it has nothing in common with any ethnic group.

It is just one of the stories produced with an intention to “justify” the “existence” of Bosniak “ethnicity”. The best answer to this Bogomil-Bosniak “thesis” is Mehmed Pasha Sokolović (1506-1579), the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, whose cousin Makarije Sokolović was the Serbian Patriarch from 1557 to 1571.

that still does not answer my point.

My view is also liberal when the self-identification is in question. You can say that you are a member of some extraterrestrial community, if you like. Personally, I have nothing against those who misused the name of Bosniak, making overnight a new ethnicity of that regional name. Nevertheless, on the other hand, I think also that the truth has to be told, and the truth is that neither Bosniak nor Bosnian has ever been considered as an ethnic group prior the last Balkan War (1991-95).

What point are you trying to make? As I’ve already told you, Bogomils were the sect inside the Orthodox Church – they were mainly the ethnic Bulgars or Serbs. Bogomils had nothing to do with the ethnic affiliation. The Serbs themselves could be Catholics today because the Serbian king Stephen the First-crowned was granted the title of the “King of Raška” in 1217 by the Pope Honorius III. Two years later Stephen was crowned again, this time as an Orthodox king.of the Serbs Of course, even if the Serbs did accept the Catholic faith they would still remain the Serbs.

Most of the times helping isn’t helping; it is a form of control and method for reduction of diversity.

The fact is, the former Yoguslavia would survive, despite of its internal contradiction, if their dissolution hadn’t been fueled from outside. Most of the Yugoslav people have never thought about your fucking “diversity”; they wanted peace, a normal standard of living and the right to a dignified life in general.

Just a century and a half ago your Slovenian “comrades” didn’t exactly know what their “diversity” was. They had more dialects than all the other Slavic world together, and they called themselves regionally: Kranjci, Štajerci, Korošci etc. Finally, after being unable to rich an agreement how to call their Kajkavian “world”, they decided to take the common name of the Slavs (Serb. Sloveni => Slovenci).

In fact, the modern Slovenians were those Croats, which had been mentioned by Porphyrogenitus (De administrando Imperio); also known as Chorutani (Karyntianie, Chorutanie; 7th century AD). OTOH the modern Croats never existed in history before the second half of the 19th century, after they abandoned Illyrian name and took the name of a small Slavic tribe, located at the border of the contemporary Republic of Slovenia, who could be named the “Torlakians in the west of the Balkans” (people who spoke neither Slovenian nor Serbian).

What an unusual chain of events: the medieval Croats from Chorutanie (Carantania) became Slovenians (Slavs), while the Serbs Catholics took over the Croatian (Chorutanian; Horvatian) name… Interesting, isn’t it?

Yugoslavia dissolved as a result of democracy …

And what is a democracy anyway? Any multi-ethnic society must ban all the parties which might be organized on the ethnic principles. Otherwise, that society would be doomed to self-destruction.

The former Yugoslavia experienced and paid such a thoughtlessness bloodily. Imagine what would have happened in case if the USA had allowed the foundation of the ethnic or race related political organizations?

Just a century and a half ago your Slovenian “comrades” didn’t exactly know what their “diversity” was. They had more dialects than all the other Slavic world together, and they called themselves regionally: Kranjci, Štajerci, Korošci etc. Finally, after being unable to rich an agreement how to call their Kajkavian “world”, they decided to take the common name of the Slavs (Serb. Sloveni => Slovenci).

“Slovenci” was introduced by Primož Trubar around 1550 (I already posted > links with transaltions of his texts quite some time ago).

Absolutely irrelevant. He just used the common Slavonic name (Slovensko ime) as it was quite natural in those times among the other South-Slavic tribes (Slovins in Dubrovnik; Slavonia – the state incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire; cf. Slovinski jezik, Slovenski jezik ‘Slovenian and Slovinian language’).

In the 11-12th century the region of old Carantania (which encompassed the territory of the modern Slovenia) was known as Pagus Chrouuat (Zemlja Hrvata ‘the Land of Croatians’). Of course, it was not a land of the nowadays Croats, but the land of the present-day Slovenes. White Croats (Byelohravati), a Slavic tribe which migrated from the north of Europe to Dalmatia (the coastal part of today’s Croatia) were in fact the ancestors of the modern Slovenians.

I agree. I was surprised too. but his earlier entry in french does not mention Montenegro. the point was that there were people called Croates outside of then Austrian Croatia.

Not until he end of 19th century. For instance, there is a community of Catholics in the north of Serbia (Subotica), called Bunjevci (people who moved to that area in the beginning of the 16th century from Dalmatia, Lika and the Croatian littoral). Even in the Catholic Encyclopedia they were referred to as Catholic Serbs: “Serbians who happen to be Catholic are called Bunjevaci.”
After the Croatians finally chose their name (the second half of the 19th century), they tended to equalize the Catholic faith with the new- coined name of Croatian. Above-mentioned Bunjevci, who originated from the “heart” of the modern Croatia, where in fact the Catholic Serbs. Actually, before the 1867 Croatia was a region which encompassed a relatively small area around Zagreb, and after the creation of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia, Croatia was broadened to a central part of modern Croatia (see J. Fine)

Now we are coming to the very interesting question: why the people on the territory of the medieval (Porphyrogenitus) Croatia “forgot” their ethnicity and why they called their land Dalmatia instead of Croatia? How it happened that the “Croatia proper” moved so far to the north? And how it was possible that the inhabitants of the “dislocated” Croatia became the speaker of Kajkavian (a dialect of Slovenian), while the inhabitant of Dalmatia (the Croatia proper according to Porphyrogenitus) remained the speakers of Shtokavian (a Serbian dialect).

The solution of this puzzle may only lie in the fact that Porphyrogenitus never thought about the Croatians, who would be recreated later (the secon half of the 19th century) on the old historical date but in the place which was shifted far to the north. Namely, when the Byzantine Emperor mentioned the migration of the Balkan Slavs, he thought about Serbs who spoke Serbian (Shtokavian) and about Croatians who spoke Croatian (Kajkavian), which belonged to the same language dialects as the modern Slovenian (old Carantanian, Chorutanian; cf. Pagus Chrouuat).

I think the Catholics were called Croatians.

Before the WWII the majority of Bosnian Catholics considered themselves either Serbs or their were undecisive about their ethnic affiliation. The same was in Dalmatia and Slavonia. If you want to find out more about the creation of the Croats read the book “When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans”, by John Fine.

In the beginning Croats were a small Slovenian tribe who spoke a kaikavian language (Croatian) that was a transitional link between the Serbian and Slovenian language. In the end of the XIX century, the Catholic Slavs in the territory of today’s Croatia, didn’t know what name to choose for themselves (Slavonians, Slovins, Illyrians etc.; as Catholics they didn’t want to identify themselves with the Serbs anymore). Finally, they decided to name their nation and, consequently, their “ethnicity” in accordance with the name of a small Slavic tribe (Croats), situated on the border of present Slovenia.

Also, the major division amongst the Slav Balkan peoples seem to be whether they were Christened from Roma or Nea Roma [Constantinople].

Yes, the Serbs and the former Serbs (Orthodox, Catholics and Muslims; Serbs, Croats and the new-composed Bosniaks) were fighting the last Balkan war (1991-95).

I remember reading the word “Montenegriner” in a German book of the 19th century.

I may say that I am Montenegriner too, because my ancestors are from Montenegro (even today, the surname Vukotić is one among the few most important family names in Montenegro); but the Montenegriner always was the local name of the Serbs living in Montenegro as the Bosnian was the local name of the Serbs in Bosnia. The name of Montenegro (Serb. Crna Gora) comes from the medieval name of the mountain range in the north of the country – ‘Black Mountain’. There is also a mountain and an area called Crna Gora (Montenegro; Black Mountain) in the neighboring “Macedonia” (the mountain range on the border between Serbia and the FYROM; above Skopje), predominantly inhabited by Serbs

I just read in the German WP that Montenegro was an independent Kingdom from 1878 through 1918,

Yes, it’s correct; from 1878 (congress of Berlin) Montenegro was an independent Serbian Kingdom, under the rule of the renowned Serbian royal family of Petrović; Nikola Petrović, the king of Monengro even wrote a Serbian anthem of Montenegro ‘Onamo namo. See below.

There, over there… beyond those hills, Lies there, they say, Milos’s grave! There my soul eternal peace shall gain, When the Serb is no more a slave.

The truth is that those people don’t identify as serbs, don’t use an identical written language, don’t go to the same church and don’t have the same opinion on most historical matters – so what is it exactly that makes them serbs?

You are talking about the present day situation. Of course, they are not Serbs they are the former Serbs (as I told earlier).

Yes, you can change your world view, you can change your religious belief, and even your own ethnicity, if you like, but you cannot change the history and you cannot replace your ancestors.

I am talking about the historical facts and I do not give a damn for what any individual or a group of people likes or dislikes. AS far as I am concerned you may say you are a Martian; that’s your right and it is a matter of personal freedom.

However, it is inadmissible (I hope you agree) to distort the facts about your forefathers just to comply with some of your gregarious, material or spiritual motifs and intentions.