ISO 639-1 sh (deprecated)
ISO 639-2 scr, scc (deprecated)
Areas where Serbo-Croatian is spoken by a plurality of speakers (as of 2005).
THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS IPA PHONETIC SYMBOLS. Without proper rendering support , you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA .
SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS
Western South Slavic
* ( Prekmurje Slovene * Resian )
* SERBO-CROATIAN STANDARD LANGUAGES * Bosnian * Croatian * Montenegrin
* Serbian ( Slavonic-Serbian )
* SERBO-CROATIAN DIALECTS
* (Bunjevac * Dubrovnik
Eastern Herzegovinian Smederevo–Vršac
* Šumadija– Vojvodina * Užican )
* (Burgenland * Molise )
* SERBO-CROATIAN ACCENTS
* Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
Eastern South Slavic
* Church Slavonic (Old )
* BULGARIAN * Dialects * Banat
* (Western * Southeastern
* Northern * Torlakian )
* SERBIAN–BULGARIAN–MACEDONIAN * Transitional Bulgarian dialects
* CROATIAN–SLOVENIAN * Kajkavian
* Bohoričica * Dajnčica * Metelčica
a Includes Banat Bulgarian alphabet .
* v * t * e
SERBO-CROATIAN /ˌsɜːrboʊkroʊˈeɪʃən, -bə-/ ( listen ), also called SERBO-CROAT /ˌsɜːrboʊˈkroʊæt, -bə-/ , SERBO-CROAT-BOSNIAN (SCB), BOSNIAN-CROATIAN-SERBIAN (BCS), or BOSNIAN-CROATIAN-MONTENEGRIN-SERBIAN (BCMS), is a South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia , Croatia , Bosnia and Herzegovina , and Montenegro . It is a pluricentric language with four mutually intelligible standard varieties.
South Slavic dialects historically formed a continuum . The turbulent history of the area, particularly due to expansion of the Ottoman Empire , resulted in a patchwork of dialectal and religious differences. Due to population migrations, Shtokavian became the most widespread in the western Balkans, intruding westwards into the area previously occupied by Chakavian and Kajkavian (which further blend into Slovenian in the northwest). Bosniaks , Croats and Serbs differ in religion and were historically often part of different cultural circles, although a large part of the nations have lived side by side under foreign overlords. During that period, the language was referred to under a variety of names, such as "Slavic", "Illyrian", or according to region, "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian", the latter often in combination with "Slavonian" or "Dalmatian".
Serbo-Croatian was standardized in the mid-19th-century Vienna Literary Agreement by Croatian and Serbian writers and philologists, decades before a Yugoslav state was established. From the very beginning, there were slightly different literary Serbian and Croatian standards, although both were based on the same Shtokavian subdialect, Eastern Herzegovinian . In the 20th century, Serbo-Croatian served as the official language of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (when it was called "Serbo-Croato-Slovenian"), and later as one of the official languages of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia . The breakup of Yugoslavia affected language attitudes, so that social conceptions of the language separated on ethnic and political lines. Since the breakup of Yugoslavia , Bosnian has likewise been established as an official standard in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is an ongoing movement to codify a separate Montenegrin standard. Serbo-Croatian thus generally goes by the ethnic names Serbian , Croatian , Bosnian , and sometimes Montenegrin and Bunjevac .
Like other South Slavic languages, Serbo-Croatian has a simple phonology , with the common five-vowel system and twenty-five consonants. Its grammar evolved from Common Slavic , with complex inflection , preserving seven grammatical cases in nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. Verbs exhibit imperfective or perfective aspect , with a moderately complex tense system. Serbo-Croatian is a pro-drop language with flexible word order, subject–verb–object being the default. It can be written in Serbian Cyrillic or Gaj\'s Latin alphabet , whose thirty letters mutually map one-to-one, and the orthography is highly phonemic in all standards.
* 1 Name
* 2 History
* 2.1 Early development * 2.2 Gallery * 2.3 Modern standardization
* 3 Demographics * 4 Grammar
* 5 Phonology
* 5.1 Vowels * 5.2 Consonants * 5.3 Pitch accent
* 6 Orthography
* 6.1 Writing systems
* 7 Dialects
* 7.1 Division by _jat_ reflex
* 8 Present sociolinguistic situation
* 8.1 Comparison with other pluricentric languages * 8.2 Contemporary names
* 8.3 Views of linguists in the former Yugoslavia
* 8.3.1 Serbian linguists * 8.3.2 Croatian linguists
* 8.4 Political connotations
* 9 Words of Serbo-Croatian origin * 10 See also
* 11 Notes and references
* 11.1 Notes * 11.2 References
* 12 Bibliography * 13 Further reading * 14 External links
Throughout the history of the South Slavs, the vernacular, literary, and written languages (e.g. Chakavian, Kajkavian, Shtokavian) of the various regions and ethnicities developed and diverged independently. Prior to the 19th century, they were collectively called "Illyric", "Slavic", "Slavonian", "Bosnian", "Dalmatian", "Serbian" or "Croatian". As such, the term _Serbo-Croatian_ was first used by Jacob Grimm in 1824, popularized by the Vienna philologist Jernej Kopitar in the following decades, and accepted by Croatian Zagreb grammarians in 1854 and 1859. At that time, Serb and Croat lands were still part of the Ottoman and Austrian Empires . Officially, the language was called variously _Serbo-Croat, Croato-Serbian, Serbian and Croatian, Croatian and Serbian, Serbian or Croatian, Croatian or Serbian._ Unofficially, Serbs and Croats typically called the language "Serbian" or "Croatian", respectively, without implying a distinction between the two, and again in independent Bosnia and Herzegovina , "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" were considered to be three names of a single official language. Croatian linguist Dalibor Brozović advocated the term _Serbo-Croatian_ as late as 1988, claiming that in an analogy with Indo-European, Serbo-Croatian does not only name the two components of the same language, but simply charts the limits of the region in which it is spoken and includes everything between the limits (‘Bosnian’ and ‘Montenegrin’). Today, use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" is controversial due to the prejudice that nation and language must match. It is still used for lack of a succinct alternative, though alternative names have been used, such as _Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian_ (BCS), which is often seen in political contexts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia .
Humac tablet, ~1000 AD Hval\'s Codex , 1404
Old Church Slavonic was adopted as the language of the liturgy . This language was gradually adapted to non-liturgical purposes and became known as the Croatian version of Old Slavonic. The two variants of the language, liturgical and non-liturgical, continued to be a part of the Glagolitic service as late as the middle of the 19th century. The earliest known Croatian Church Slavonic Glagolitic manuscripts are the _Glagolita Clozianus_ and the _Vienna Folia_ from the 11th century.
_ Speech example An example of Old Croatian used in Baška tablet. -------------------------
Problems playing this file? See media help ._
The beginning of written Serbo-Croatian can be traced from the 10th century and on when Serbo-Croatian medieval texts were written in five scripts: Latin , Glagolitic , Early Cyrillic , Bosnian Cyrillic (_bosančica/bosanica_), and Arebica , the last principally by Bosniak nobility. Serbo-Croatian competed with the more established literary languages of Latin and Old Slavonic in the west and Persian and Arabic in the east.
Old Slavonic developed into the Serbo-Croatian variant of Church Slavonic between the 12th and 16th centuries.
Among the earliest attestations of Serbo-Croatian are the Humac tablet , dating from the 10th or 11th century, written in Bosnian Cyrillic and Glagolitic; the Plomin tablet , dating from the same era, written in Glagolitic; the Valun tablet , dated to the 11th century, written in Glagolitic and Latin; and the Inscription of Župa Dubrovačka , a Glagolitic tablet dated to the 11th century.
The Baška tablet from the late 11th century was written in Glagolitic. It is a large stone tablet found in the small Church of St. Lucy, Jurandvor on the Croatian island of Krk that contains text written mostly in Chakavian in the Croatian angular Glagolitic script. It is also important in the history of the nation as it mentions Zvonimir , the king of Croatia at the time.
The luxurious and ornate representative texts of Serbo-Croatian Church Slavonic belong to the later era, when they coexisted with the Serbo-Croatian vernacular literature. The most notable are the "Missal of Duke Novak" from the Lika region in northwestern Croatia (1368), "Evangel from Reims" (1395, named after the town of its final destination), Hrvoje\'s Missal from Bosnia and Split in Dalmatia (1404), and the first printed book in Serbo-Croatian, the Glagolitic Missale Romanum Glagolitice (1483).
During the 13th century Serbo-Croatian vernacular texts began to appear, the most important among them being the "Istrian land survey" of 1275 and the " Vinodol Codex " of 1288, both written in the Chakavian dialect.
The Shtokavian dialect literature, based almost exclusively on Chakavian original texts of religious provenance (missals , breviaries , prayer books ) appeared almost a century later. The most important purely Shtokavian vernacular text is the Vatican Croatian Prayer Book (c. 1400).
Both the language used in legal texts and that used in Glagolitic literature gradually came under the influence of the vernacular, which considerably affected its phonological , morphological , and lexical systems. From the 14th and the 15th centuries, both secular and religious songs at church festivals were composed in the vernacular.
Writers of early Serbo-Croatian religious poetry (_začinjavci_) gradually introduced the vernacular into their works. These _začinjavci_ were the forerunners of the rich literary production of the 16th-century literature, which, depending on the area, was Chakavian-, Kajkavian-, or Shtokavian-based. The language of religious poems, translations, miracle and morality plays contributed to the popular character of medieval Serbo-Croatian literature.
Humac tablet from the 10th century *
Charter of Bosnian Ban Kulin from the 12th century *
The Vinodol Codex, 1288 *
Vatican Croatian Prayer Book c. 1400 *
Hrvoje\'s Missal , 1404 *
A page from the "Istrian land survey" of 1526
_ Đuro Daničić , Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika_ (Croatian or Serbian Dictionary), 1882 _ Gramatika bosanskoga jezika_ (Grammar of the Bosnian Language), 1890
In the mid-19th century, Serbian (led by self-taught writer and folklorist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić ) and most Croatian writers and linguists (represented by the Illyrian movement and led by Ljudevit Gaj and Đuro Daničić ), proposed the use of the most widespread dialect, Shtokavian , as the base for their common standard language. Karadžić standardised the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet , and Gaj and Daničić standardized the Croatian Latin alphabet , on the basis of vernacular speech phonemes and the principle of phonological spelling. In 1850 Serbian and Croatian writers and linguists signed the Vienna Literary Agreement , declaring their intention to create a unified standard. Thus a complex bi-variant language appeared, which the Serbs officially called "Serbo-Croatian" or "Serbian or Croatian" and the Croats "Croato-Serbian", or "Croatian or Serbian". Yet, in practice, the variants of the conceived common literary language served as different literary variants, chiefly differing in lexical inventory and stylistic devices. The common phrase describing this situation was that Serbo-Croatian or "Croatian or Serbian" was a single language. During the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina , the language of all three nations was called "Bosnian" until the death of administrator von Kállay in 1907, at which point the name was changed to "Serbo-Croatian".
With unification of the first the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes – the approach of Karadžić and the Illyrians became dominant. The official language was called "Serbo-Croato-Slovenian" (_srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenački_) in the 1921 constitution. In 1929, the constitution was suspended, and the country was renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia , while the official language of Serbo-Croato-Slovene was reinstated in the 1931 constitution.
In June 1941, the Nazi puppet Independent State of Croatia began to rid the language of "Eastern" (Serbian) words, and shut down Serbian schools.
On January 15, 1944, the Anti-Fascist Council of the People's Liberation of Yugoslavia ( AVNOJ ) declared Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, and Macedonian to be equal in the entire territory of Yugoslavia. In 1945 the decision to recognize Croatian and Serbian as separate languages was reversed in favor of a single Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. In the Communist -dominated second Yugoslavia , ethnic issues eased to an extent, but the matter of language remained blurred and unresolved.
In 1954, major Serbian and Croatian writers, linguists and literary critics, backed by Matica srpska and Matica hrvatska signed the Novi Sad Agreement , which in its first conclusion stated: "Serbs, Croats and Montenegrins share a single language with two equal variants that have developed around Zagreb (western) and Belgrade (eastern)". The agreement insisted on the equal status of Cyrillic and Latin scripts, and of Ekavian and Ijekavian pronunciations. It also specified that _Serbo-Croatian_ should be the name of the language in official contexts, while in unofficial use the traditional _Serbian_ and _Croatian_ were to be retained. Matica hrvatska and Matica srpska were to work together on a dictionary, and a committee of Serbian and Croatian linguists was asked to prepare a _pravopis_. During the sixties both books were published simultaneously in Ijekavian Latin in Zagreb and Ekavian Cyrillic in Novi Sad. Yet Croatian linguists claim that it was an act of unitarianism. The evidence supporting this claim is patchy: Croatian linguist Stjepan Babić complained that the television transmission from Belgrade always used the Latin alphabet — which was true, but was not proof of unequal rights, but of frequency of use and prestige. Babić further complained that the Novi Sad Dictionary (1967) listed side by side words from both the Croatian and Serbian variants wherever they differed, which one can view as proof of careful respect for both variants, and not of unitarism. Moreover, Croatian linguists criticized those parts of the Dictionary for being unitaristic that were written by Croatian linguists. And finally, Croatian linguists ignored the fact that the material for the _Pravopisni rječnik_ came from the Croatian Philological Society. Regardless of these facts, Croatian intellectuals brought the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language in 1967. On occasion of the publication’s 45th anniversary, the Croatian weekly journal Forum published the Declaration again in 2012, accompanied by a critical analysis.
West European scientists judge the Yugoslav language policy as an exemplary one: although three-quarters of the population spoke one language, no single language was official on a federal level. Official languages were declared only at the level of constituent republics and provinces, and very generously: Vojvodina had five (among them Slovak and Romanian, spoken by 0.5 per cent of the population), and Kosovo four (Albanian, Turkish, Romany and Serbo-Croatian). Newspapers, radio and television studios used sixteen languages, fourteen were used as languages of tuition in schools, and nine at universities. Only the Yugoslav Army used Serbo-Croatian as the sole language of command, with all other languages represented in the army’s other activities—however, this is not different from other armies of multilingual states, or in other specific institutions, such as international air traffic control where English is used worldwide. All variants of Serbo-Croatian were used in state administration and republican and federal institutions. Both Serbian and Croatian variants were represented in respectively different grammar books, dictionaries, school textbooks and in books known as pravopis (which detail spelling rules). Serbo-Croatian was a kind of soft standardisation. However, legal equality could not dampen the prestige Serbo-Croatian had: since it was the language of three quarters of the population, it functioned as an unofficial lingua franca. And within Serbo-Croatian, the Serbian variant, with twice as many speakers as the Croatian, enjoyed greater prestige, reinforced by the fact that Slovene and Macedonian speakers preferred it to the Croatian variant because their languages are also Ekavian. This is a common situation in other pluricentric languages, e.g. the variants of German differ according to their prestige, the variants of Portuguese too. Moreover, all languages differ in terms of prestige: "the fact is that languages (in terms of prestige, learnability etc.) are not equal, and the law cannot make them equal".
In 2017, the "Declaration of the Common Language" (_Deklaracija o zajedničkom jeziku_), signed by a group of NGOs and linguists from former Yugoslavia, argues that all variants belong to a common polycentric language.
_ Countries where a standard form of Serbo-Croatian is an official language. Countries where one or more forms are designated as a minority languages.
This article NEEDS ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FOR VERIFICATION . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)_ _(Learn how and when to remove this template message )_
The total number of persons who declared their native language as either 'Bosnian', 'Croatian', 'Serbian', 'Montenegrin', or 'Serbo-Croatian' in countries of the region is about 16 million.
Serbian is spoken by about 9.5 million, mostly in Serbia (6.7m), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1.4m), and Montenegro (0.4m). Serbian minorities are found in the Republic of Macedonia and in Romania . In Serbia, there are about 760,000 second-language speakers of Serbian, including Hungarians in Vojvodina and the 400,000 estimated Roma. Familiarity of Kosovo Albanians with Serbian in Kosovo varies depending on age and education, and exact numbers are not available.
Croatian is spoken by roughly 4.8 million, including some 575,000 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A small Croatian minority that lives in Italy, known as Molise Croats , have somewhat preserved traces of the Croatian language. In Croatia, 170,000, mostly Italians and Hungarians , use it as a second language .
The notion of Montenegrin as a separate standard from Serbian is relatively recent. In the 2003 census, around 150,000 Montenegrins, of the country's 620,000, declared Montenegrin as their native language. That figure is likely to increase since, due to the country's independence and strong institutional backing of Montenegrin language.
Serbo-Croatian is also a second language of many Slovenians and Macedonians , especially those born during the time of Yugoslavia. According to the 2002 Census, Serbo-Croatian and its variants have the largest number of speakers of the minority languages in Slovenia.
Outside the Balkans, there are over 2 million native speakers of the language(s), especially in countries which are frequent targets of immigration, such as Australia , Austria , Brazil , Canada , Chile , Germany , Hungary , Italy , Sweden and the United States .
Serbo-Croatian is a highly inflected language . Traditional grammars list seven cases for nouns and adjectives : nominative , genitive , dative , accusative , vocative , locative , and instrumental , reflecting the original seven cases of Proto-Slavic , and indeed older forms of Serbo-Croatian itself. However, in modern Shtokavian the locative has almost merged into dative (the only difference is based on accent in some cases), and the other cases can be shown declining; namely:
* For all nouns and adjectives, instrumental = dative = locative (at least orthographically) in the plural: _ženama_, _ženama_, _ženama_; _očima_, _očima_, _očima_; _riječima_, _riječima_, _riječima_. * There is an accentual difference between the genitive singular and genitive plural of masculine and neuter nouns, which are otherwise homonyms (_seljaka_, _seljaka_) except that on occasion an "a" (which might or might not appear in the singular) is filled between the last letter of the root and the genitive plural ending (_kapitalizma_, _kapitalizama_). * The old instrumental ending "ju" of the feminine consonant stems and in some cases the "a" of the genitive plural of certain other sorts of feminine nouns is fast yielding to "i": _noći_ instead of _noćju_, _borbi_ instead of _boraba_ and so forth. * Almost every Shtokavian number is indeclinable, and numbers after prepositions have not been declined for a long time.
Like most Slavic languages, there are mostly three genders for nouns: masculine, feminine, and neuter, a distinction which is still present even in the plural (unlike Russian and, in part, the Čakavian dialect ). They also have two numbers : singular and plural. However, some consider there to be three numbers (paucal or _dual,_ too), since (still preserved in closely related Slovene ) after two (_dva_, _dvije_/_dve_), three (_tri_) and four (_četiri_), and all numbers ending in them (e.g. twenty-two, ninety-three, one hundred four) the genitive singular is used, and after all other numbers five (_pet_) and up, the genitive plural is used. (The number one is treated as an adjective.) Adjectives are placed in front of the noun they modify and must agree in both case and number with it.
There are seven tenses for verbs: past , present , future , exact future, aorist , imperfect , and plusquamperfect ; and three moods : indicative , imperative , and conditional . However, the latter three tenses are typically used only in Shtokavian writing, and the time sequence of the exact future is more commonly formed through an alternative construction.
In addition, like most Slavic languages, the Shtokavian verb also has one of two aspects : perfective or imperfective . Most verbs come in pairs, with the perfective verb being created out of the imperfective by adding a prefix or making a stem change. The imperfective aspect typically indicates that the action is unfinished, in progress, or repetitive; while the perfective aspect typically denotes that the action was completed, instantaneous, or of limited duration. Some Štokavian tenses (namely, aorist and imperfect) favor a particular aspect (but they are rarer or absent in Čakavian and Kajkavian). Actually, aspects "compensate" for the relative lack of tenses, because aspect of the verb determines whether the act is completed or in progress in the referred time.
Main article: Serbo-Croatian phonology
The Serbo-Croatian vowel system is simple, with only five vowels in Shtokavian. All vowels are monophthongs . The oral vowels are as follows:
LATIN SCRIPT CYRILLIC SCRIPT IPA DESCRIPTION ENGLISH APPROXIMATION
A а /a/ open central unrounded _fAther_
E е /e/ mid front unrounded _dEn_
I и /i/ close front unrounded _sEEk_
O о /o/ mid back rounded _lOrd_
U у /u/ close back rounded _pOOl_
The vowels can be short or long, but the phonetic quality doesn't change depending on the length. In a word, vowels can be long in the stressed syllable and the syllables following it, never in the ones preceding it.
The consonant system is more complicated, and its characteristic features are series of affricate and palatal consonants. As in English, voice is phonemic , but aspiration is not.
LATIN SCRIPT CYRILLIC SCRIPT IPA DESCRIPTION ENGLISH APPROXIMATION
R р /r/ alveolar trill rolled (vibrating) R as in _caRRamba_
V в /ʋ/ labiodental approximant roughly between _Vortex_ and _War_
J ј /j/ palatal approximant _Year_
L л /l/ alveolar lateral approximant _Light_
LJ љ /ʎ/ palatal lateral approximant roughly _battaLIon_
M м /m/ bilabial nasal _Man_
N н /n/ alveolar nasal _Not_
NJ њ /ɲ/ palatal nasal _News_ or American _caNYon_
F ф /f/ voiceless labiodental fricative _Five_
S с /s/ voiceless dental sibilant _Some_
Z з /z/ voiced dental sibilant _Zero_
š ш /ʃ/ voiceless postalveolar fricative _SHarp_
ž ж /ʒ/ voiced postalveolar fricative _televiSIon_
H х /x/ voiceless velar fricative _loCH_
C ц /t͡s/ voiceless dental affricate _poTS_
Dž џ /d͡ʒ/ voiced postalveolar affricate roughly _eJect_
č ч /t͡ʃ/ voiceless postalveolar affricate roughly _CHeck_
đ ђ /d͡ʑ/ voiced alveolo-palatal affricate roughly _Jews_
ć ћ /t͡ɕ/ voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate roughly _CHoose_
B б /b/ voiced bilabial plosive _Book_
P п /p/ voiceless bilabial plosive _toP_
D д /d/ voiced dental plosive _Dog_
T т /t/ voiceless dental plosive _iT_
G г /ɡ/ voiced velar plosive _Good_
K к /k/ voiceless velar plosive _duCK_
In consonant clusters all consonants are either voiced or voiceless. All the consonants are voiced if the last consonant is normally voiced or voiceless if the last consonant is normally voiceless. This rule does not apply to approximants – a consonant cluster may contain voiced approximants and voiceless consonants; as well as to foreign words (_Washington_ would be transcribed as _VašinGton_), personal names and when consonants are not inside of one syllable.
/r/ can be syllabic, playing the role of the syllable nucleus in certain words (occasionally, it can even have a long accent). For example, the tongue-twister _navrh brda vrba mrda_ involves four words with syllabic /r/. A similar feature exists in Czech , Slovak , and Macedonian . Very rarely other sonorants can be syllabic, like /l/ (in _bicikl_), /ʎ/ (surname _Štarklj_), /n/ (unit _njutn_), as well as /m/ and /ɲ/ in slang .
Apart from Slovene , Serbo-Croatian is the only Slavic language with a pitch accent (simple tone ) system. This feature is present in some other Indo-European languages , such as Swedish , Norwegian , and Ancient Greek . Neo- Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian, which is used as the basis for standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, has four "accents", which involve either a rising or falling tone on either long or short vowels, with optional post-tonic lengths:
Serbo-Croatian accent system Slavicist symbol IPA symbol DESCRIPTION
non-tonic short vowel
non-tonic long vowel
short vowel with rising tone
long vowel with rising tone
short vowel with falling tone
long vowel with falling tone
The tone stressed vowels can be approximated in English with _set_ vs. _setting?_ said in isolation for a short tonic _e,_ or _leave_ vs. _leaving?_ for a long tonic _i,_ due to the prosody of final stressed syllables in English.
General accent rules in the standard language:
* Monosyllabic words may have only a falling tone (or no accent at all – enclitics ); * Falling tone may occur only on the first syllable of polysyllabic words; * Accent can never occur on the last syllable of polysyllabic words.
There are no other rules for accent placement, thus the accent of every word must be learned individually; furthermore, in inflection, accent shifts are common, both in type and position (the so-called "mobile paradigms "). The second rule is not strictly obeyed, especially in borrowed words.
Comparative and historical linguistics offers some clues for memorising the accent position: If one compares many standard Serbo-Croatian words to e.g. cognate Russian words, the accent in the Serbo-Croatian word will be one syllable before the one in the Russian word, with the rising tone. Historically, the rising tone appeared when the place of the accent shifted to the preceding syllable (the so-called "Neoshtokavian retraction"), but the quality of this new accent was different – its melody still "gravitated" towards the original syllable. Most Shtokavian dialects (Neoshtokavian) dialects underwent this shift, but Chakavian, Kajkavian and the Old Shtokavian dialects did not.
Accent diacritics are not used in the ordinary orthography, but only in the linguistic or language-learning literature (e.g. dictionaries, orthography and grammar books). However, there are very few minimal pairs where an error in accent can lead to misunderstanding.
_ This section DOES NOT CITE ANY SOURCES . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (December 2013)_ _(Learn how and when to remove this template message )_
Serbo-Croatian orthography is almost entirely phonetic. Thus, most words should be spelled as they are pronounced. In practice, the writing system does not take into account allophones which occur as a result of interaction between words:
* bit će – pronounced _biće_ (and only written separately in Bosnian and Croatian) * od toga – pronounced _otoga_ (in many vernaculars) * iz čega – pronounced _iščega_ (in many vernaculars)
Also, there are some exceptions, mostly applied to foreign words and compounds, that favor morphological/etymological over phonetic spelling:
* postdiplomski (postgraduate) – pronounced _pozdiplomski_
One systemic exception is that the consonant clusters DS and Dš do not change into TS and Tš (although _d_ tends to be unvoiced in normal speech in such clusters):
* predstava (show) * odšteta (damages)
Only a few words are intentionally "misspelled", mostly in order to resolve ambiguity:
* šeststo (six hundred) – pronounced _šesto_ (to avoid confusion with "šesto" ) * prstni (adj., finger) – pronounced _prsni_ (to avoid confusion with "prsni" )
Through history, this language has been written in a number of writing systems:
The oldest texts since the 11th century are in Glagolitic , and the oldest preserved text written completely in the Latin alphabet is "Red i zakon sestara reda Svetog Dominika", from 1345. The Arabic alphabet had been used by Bosniaks ; Greek writing is out of use there, and Arabic and Glagolitic persisted so far partly in religious liturgies.
The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was revised by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in the 19th century.
The Croatian Latin alphabet (_Gajica _) followed suit shortly afterwards, when Ljudevit Gaj defined it as standard Latin with five extra letters that had diacritics , apparently borrowing much from Czech , but also from Polish , and inventing the unique digraphs "lj", "nj" and "dž". These digraphs are represented as "ļ, ń and ǵ" respectively in the "Rječnik hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika", published by the former Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb . The latter digraphs, however, are unused in the literary standard of the language. All in all, this makes Serbo-Croatian the only Slavic language to officially use both the Latin and Cyrillic scripts, albeit the Latin version is more commonly used.
In both cases, spelling is phonetic and spellings in the two alphabets map to each other one-to-one:
LATIN TO CYRILLIC
A a B b C c Č č Ć ć D d Dž dž Đ đ E e F f G g H h I i J j K k
А а Б б Ц ц Ч ч Ћ ћ Д д Џ џ Ђ ђ Е е Ф ф Г г Х х И и Ј ј К к
L l Lj lj M m N n Nj nj O o P p R r S s Š š T t U u V v Z z Ž ž
Л л Љ љ М м Н н Њ њ О о П п Р р С с Ш ш Т т У у В в З з Ж ж
CYRILLIC TO LATIN
А а Б б В в Г г Д д Ђ ђ Е е Ж ж З з И и Ј ј К к Л л Љ љ М м
A a B b V v G g D d Đ đ E e Ž ž Z z I i J j K k L l Lj lj M m
Н н Њ њ О о П п Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ У у Ф ф Х х Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш
N n Nj nj O o P p R r S s T t Ć ć U u F f H h C c Č č Dž dž Š š
LATIN COLLATION ORDER
Cyrillic collation order
LATIN Cyrillic equivalent
Ina Ина Ина Инверзија Инјекција Иње
The digraphs _Lj_, _Nj_ and _Dž_ represent distinct phonemes and are considered to be single letters. In crosswords, they are put into a single square, and in sorting , lj follows l and nj follows n, except in a few words where the individual letters are pronounced separately. For instance, _nadživ(j)eti_ "to outlive" is composed of the prefix _nad-_ "out, over" and the verb _živ(j)eti_ "to live". The Cyrillic alphabet avoids such ambiguity by providing a single letter for each phoneme.
_Đ_ used to be commonly written as _Dj_ on typewriters, but that practice led to too many ambiguities. It is also used on car license plates . Today _Dj_ is often used again in place of _Đ_ on the Internet as a replacement due to the lack of installed Serbo-Croat keyboard layouts.
Unicode has separate characters for the digraphs lj (Ǉ, ǈ, ǉ), nj (Ǌ, ǋ, ǌ) and dž (Ǆ, ǆ).
Main article: Dialects of Serbo-Croatian _See also:_ _South Slavic dialect continuum_
South Slavic historically formed a dialect continuum , i.e. each dialect has some similarities with the neighboring one, and differences grow with distance. However, migrations from the 16th to 18th centuries resulting from the spread of Ottoman Empire on the Balkans have caused large-scale population displacement that broke the dialect continuum into many geographical pockets. Migrations in the 20th century, primarily caused by urbanization and wars, also contributed to the reduction of dialectal differences.
The primary dialects are named after the most common question word for _what_: Shtokavian uses the pronoun _što_ or _šta_, Chakavian uses _ča_ or _ca_, Kajkavian (_kajkavski_) , _kaj_ or _kej_. In native terminology they are referred to as _nar(j)ečje_, which would be equivalent of "group of dialects", whereas their many subdialects are referred to as _dijalekti_ "dialects" or _govori_ "speeches".
The pluricentric Serbo-Croatian standard language and all four contemporary standard variants are based on the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect of Neo-Shtokavian. Other dialects are not taught in schools or used by the state media. The Torlakian dialect is often added to the list, though sources usually note that it is a transitional dialect between Shtokavian and the Bulgaro-Macedonian dialects.
Likely distribution of major dialects prior to the 16th-century migrations Shtokavian subdialects (Pavle Ivić, 1988). Yellow is the widespread Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect that forms the basis of all national standards, though it is not spoken natively in any of the capital cities. Mid-20th-century distribution of dialects in Croatia
The Serbo-Croatian dialects differ not only in the question word they are named after, but also heavily in phonology, accentuation and intonation, case endings and tense system (morphology) and basic vocabulary. In the past, Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects were spoken on a much larger territory, but have been replaced by Štokavian during the period of migrations caused by Ottoman Turkish conquest of the Balkans in the 15th and the 16th centuries. These migrations caused the koinéisation of the Shtokavian dialects, that used to form the West Shtokavian (more closer and transitional towards the neighbouring Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects) and East Shtokavian (transitional towards the Torlakian and the whole Bulgaro-Macedonian area) dialect bundles, and their subsequent spread at the expense of Chakavian and Kajkavian. As a result, Štokavian now covers an area larger than all the other dialects combined, and continues to make its progress in the enclaves where non-literary dialects are still being spoken.
The differences among the dialects can be illustrated on the example of Schleicher\'s fable . Diacritic signs are used to show the difference in accents and prosody, which are often quite significant, but which are not reflected in the usual orthography.
NEOšTOKAVIAN IJEKAVIAN/EKAVIAN Óvca i kònji Óvca koja níje ìmala vȕnē vȉd(j)ela je kònje na br(ij)égu. Jèdan je òd njīh vȗkao téška kȍla, drȕgī je nòsio vèliku vrȅću, a trȅćī je nòsio čòv(j)eka. Óvca rȅče kònjima: «Sȑce me bòlī glȅdajūći čòv(j)eka kako jȁšē na kònju». A kònji rȅkoše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nȃs sȑca bòlē kada vȉdīmo da čòv(j)ek, gospòdār, rȃdī vȕnu od ovácā i prȁvī òd(j)eću zá se. I ȍndā óvca nȇmā vȉše vȕnē. Čȗvši tō, óvca pȍb(j)eže ȕ polje. OLD ŠTOKAVIAN (ORUBICA , POSAVINA ): Óvca i kònji Óvca kòjā nî ìmala vȕnē vȉdla kònje na brîgu. Jèdān od njȉjū vũkō tȇška kȍla, drȕgī nosȉjo vȅlikū vrȅću, a trȅćī nosȉjo čovȉka. Óvca kȃza kȍnjima: «Svȅ me bolĩ kad glȅdām kako čòvik na kònju jȁšī». A kònji kāzȁše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nãs sȑca bolũ kad vȉdīmo da čòvik, gȁzda, prȁvī vȕnu od ovãc i prȁvī rȍbu zá se od njẽ. I ȍndā ōvcȁ néma vȉšē vȕnē. Kad tȏ čȕ ōvcȁ, ȕteče ȕ polje. ČAKAVIAN (MATULJI NEAR RIJEKA): Ovcȁ i konjı̏ Ovcȁ kȃ ni imȅla vȕni vȉdela je konjȉ na brȇge. Jedȃn je vȗkal tȇški vȏz, drȕgi je nosîl vȅlu vrȅt'u, a trȅt'i je nosîl čovȅka. Ovcȁ je reklȁ konjȇn: «Sȑce me bolĩ dok glȅdan čovȅka kako jȁše na konjȅ». A konjȉ su reklȉ: «Poslȕšaj, ovcȁ, nȃs sȑca bolẽ kad vȉdimo da čovȅk, gospodãr dȅla vȕnu od ovãc i dȅla rȍbu zȃ se. I ȍnda ovcȁ nĩma vȉše vȕni. Kad je tȏ čȕla, ovcȁ je pobȅgla va pȍje. KAJKAVIAN (MARIJA BISTRICA ): õfca i kȍjni õfca tera nı̃je imȅ̩la vȕne vȉdla je kȍjne na briẽgu. Jȇn od nîh je vlẽ̩ke̩l tẽška kȍla, drȕgi je nȍsil vȅliku vrȅ̩ču, a trẽjti je nȍsil čovȅ̩ka. õfca je rȇkla kȍjnem: «Sȑce me bolĩ kad vîdim čovȅka kak jȃše na kȍjnu». A kȍjni su rȇkli: «Poslȕhni, õfca, nȃs sȑca bolĩju kad vîdime da čȍve̩k, gospodãr, dȇ̩la vȕnu ot õfci i dȇ̩la oblȅ̩ku zȃ se. I ȏnda õfca nȇma vȉše vȕne. Kad je to čȗla, õfca je pobȇ̩gla f pȍlje. ENGLISH LANGUAGE The Sheep and the Horses a sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses". The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool". Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.
DIVISION BY _JAT_ REFLEX
Main article: yat
A basic distinction among the dialects is in the reflex of the long Common Slavic vowel _jat _, usually transcribed as *ě. Depending on the reflex, the dialects are divided into Ikavian, Ekavian, and Ijekavian, with the reflects of _jat_ being /i/, /e/, and /ije/ or /je/ respectively. The long and short _jat_ is reflected as long or short */i/ and /e/ in Ikavian and Ekavian, but Ijekavian dialects introduce a _ije_/_je_ alternation to retain a distinction.
Standard Croatian and Bosnian are based on Ijekavian, whereas Serbian uses both Ekavian and Ijekavian forms ( Ijekavian for Bosnian Serbs, Ekavian for most of Serbia). Influence of standard language through state media and education has caused non-standard varieties to lose ground to the literary forms.
The jat-reflex rules are not without exception. For example, when short _jat_ is preceded by _r_, in most Ijekavian dialects developed into /re/ or, occasionally, /ri/. The prefix _prě-_ ("trans-, over-") when long became _pre-_ in eastern Ijekavian dialects but to _prije-_ in western dialects; in Ikavian pronunciation, it also evolved into _pre-_ or _prije-_ due to potential ambiguity with _pri-_ ("approach, come close to"). For verbs that had _-ěti_ in their infinitive, the past participle ending _-ěl_ evolved into _-io_ in Ijekavian Neoštokavian.
The following are some examples:
ENGLISH PREDECESSOR EKAVIAN IKAVIAN IJEKAVIAN IJEKAVIAN DEVELOPMENT
beautiful *lěp lep lip lijep long _ě_ → _ije_
time *vrěme vreme vrime vrijeme
faith *věra vera vira vjera short _ě_ → _je_
crossing *prělaz prelaz prеlaz _or_ prijelaz prеlaz _or_ prijelaz _pr_ + long _ě_ → _prije_
times *vrěmena vremena vrimena vremena _r_ + short _ě_ → _re_
need *trěbati trebati tribat(i) trebati
heat *grějati grejati grijati grijati _r_ + short _ě_ → _ri_
saw *viděl video vidio vidio _ěl_ → _io_
village *selo selo selo selo _e_ in root, not _ě_
PRESENT SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION
COMPARISON WITH OTHER PLURICENTRIC LANGUAGES
Enisa Kafadar argues that there is only one Serbo-Croatian language with several varieties. This has made it possible to include all four varieties in a new grammar book. Daniel Bunčić concludes that it is a pluricentric language, with four standard variants spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The mutual intelligibility between their speakers "exceeds that between the standard variants of English, French, German, or Spanish". Other linguists have argued that the differences between the variants of Serbo-Croatian are less significant than those between the variants of English, German, Dutch, and Hindi–Urdu.
Among pluricentric languages, Serbo-Croatian was the only one with a pluricentric standardisation within one state. The dissolution of Yugoslavia has made Serbo-Croatian even more of a typical pluricentric language, since the variants of other pluricentric languages are also spoken in different states. See also: Differences between Serbo-Croatian standard varieties
Ethno-political variants of Serbo-Croatian as of 2006.
The current Serbian constitution of 2006 refers to the official language as _Serbian_, while the Montenegrin constitution of 2007 proclaimed _Montenegrin_ as the primary official language, but also grants other languages the right of official use.
* Most Bosniaks refer to their language as _Bosnian _. * Most Croats refer to their language as _Croatian _. * Most Serbs refer to their language as _Serbian _. * Montenegrins refer to their language either as _Serbian _ or _Montenegrin _. * Ethnic Bunjevci refer to their language as _Bunjevac _.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has specified different Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) numbers for Croatian _(UDC 862,_ abbreviation HR) and Serbian _(UDC 861_, abbreviation SR), while the cover term _Serbo-Croatian_ is used to refer to the combination of original signs (_UDC 861/862,_ abbreviation SH). Furthermore, the _ ISO 639 _ standard designates the Bosnian language with the abbreviations BOS and BS.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia considers what it calls _BCS_ (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian) to be the main language of all Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian defendants. The indictments, documents, and verdicts of the ICTY are not written with any regard for consistently following the grammatical prescriptions of any of the three standards – be they Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian.
For utilitarian purposes, the Serbo- Croatian language is often called "_Naš jezik_" ("Our language") or "_Naški_" (sic. "Ourish" or "Ourian") by native speakers. This politically correct term is frequently used to describe the Serbo- Croatian language by those who wish to avoid nationalistic and linguistic discussions.
VIEWS OF LINGUISTS IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
The majority of mainstream Serbian linguists consider Serbian and Croatian to be one language, that is called Serbo-Croatian (_srpskohrvatski_) or Croato-Serbian (_hrvatskosrpski_). A minority of Serbian linguists are of the opinion that Serbo-Croatian did exist, but has, in the meantime, dissolved.
The opinion of the majority of Croatian linguists is that there has never been a Serbo-Croatian language, but two different standard languages that overlapped sometime in the course of history. However, Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić has been leading an academic discussion on that issue in the Croatian journal _Književna republika_ from 2001 to 2010. In the discussion, she shows that linguistic criteria such as mutual intelligibility, huge overlap in linguistic system, and the same dialectic basis of standard language provide evidence that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are four national variants of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language. Igor Mandić states: "During the last ten years, it has been the longest, the most serious and most acrid discussion (…) in 21st-century Croatian culture". Inspired by that discussion, a monograph on language and nationalism has been published.
The views of the majority of Croatian linguists that there is no Serbo-Croatian language, but several different standard languages, have been sharply criticized by German linguist Bernhard Gröschel in his monograph _ Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics_.
A more detailed overview, incorporating arguments from the Croatian philology and contemporary linguistics, would be as follows: _ Serbo-Croatian is a language_ One still finds many references to Serbo-Croatian, and proponents of Serbo-Croatian who deny that Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrins speak different languages. The usual argument generally goes along the following lines:
* Standard Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are completely mutually intelligible. In addition, they use two alphabets that perfectly match each other ( Latin and Cyrillic ), thanks to Ljudevit Gaj and Vuk Karadžić. Croats exclusively use Latin script and Serbs equally use both Cyrillic and Latin. Although Cyrillic is taught in Bosnia, most Bosnians, especially non-Serbs ( Bosniaks and Croats ), favor Latin. * The list of 100 words of the basic Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin vocabulary, as set out by Morris Swadesh, shows that all 100 words are identical. According to Swadesh, 81 per cent are sufficient to be considered as a single language. * Typologically and structurally, these standard variants have virtually the same grammar, i.e. morphology and syntax. * The Serbo- Croatian language was standardised in the mid-19th century, and all subsequent attempts to dissolve its basic unity have not succeeded. * The affirmation of distinct Croatian , Serbian , Bosnian , and Montenegrin languages is _politically_ motivated. * According to phonology , morphology and syntax , these standard variants are essentially one language because they are based on the same, Štokavian dialect .
_ Serbo-Croatian is not a language_ Similar arguments are made for other official standards which are nearly indistinguishable when spoken and which are therefore pluricentric languages, such as Malaysian , and Indonesian (together called Malay ), or Standard Hindi and Urdu (together called Hindustani or Hindi- Urdu ). However, some argue that these arguments have flaws:
* Phonology, morphology, and syntax are not the only dimensions of a language: other fields (semantics, pragmatics, stylistics, lexicology , etc.) also differ slightly. However, it is the case with other pluricentric languages. A comparison is made to the closely related North Germanic languages (or dialects, if one prefers), though these are not fully mutually intelligible as the Serbo-Croatian standards are. A closer comparison may be General American and Received Pronunciation in English, which are closer to each other than the latter is to other dialects which are subsumed under "British English". * Since the Croatian language as recorded in Držić and Gundulić 's works (16th and 17th centuries) is virtually the same as the contemporary standard Croatian (understandable archaisms apart), it is evident that the 19th-century formal standardization was just the final touch in the process that, as far as the Croatian language is concerned, had lasted more than three centuries. The radical break with the past, characteristic of modern Serbian (whose vernacular was likely not as similar to Croatian as it is today), is a trait completely at variance with Croatian linguistic history. In short, formal standardization processes for Croatian and Serbian had coincided chronologically (and, one could add, ideologically), but they haven't produced a unified standard language. Gundulić did not write in "Serbo-Croatian", nor did August Šenoa . Marko Marulić and Marin Držić wrote in a sophisticated idiom of the Croatian language some 300–350 years before "Serbo-Croatian" ideology appeared. Marulić explicitly called his Čakavian-written _Judita_ as _u uerish haruacchi slosena_ ("arranged in Croatian stanzas") in 1501, and the Štokavian grammar and dictionary of Bartol Kašić written in 1604 unambiguously identifies the ethnonyms _Slavic_ and _Illyrian_ with _Croatian_.
The linguistic debate in this region is more about politics than about linguistics per se.
The topic of language for writers from Dalmatia and Dubrovnik prior to the 19th century made a distinction only between speakers of Italian or Slavic, since those were the two main groups that inhabited Dalmatian city-states at that time. Whether someone spoke Croatian or Serbian was not an important distinction then, as the two languages were not distinguished by most speakers. This has been used as an argument to state that Croatian literature Croatian per se, but also includes Serbian and other languages that are part of Serbo-Croatian, These facts undermine the Croatian language proponents' argument that modern-day Croatian is based on a language called Old Croatian.
However, most intellectuals and writers from Dalmatia who used the Štokavian dialect and practiced the Catholic faith saw themselves as part of a Croatian nation as far back as the mid-16th to 17th centuries, some 300 years before Serbo-Croatian ideology appeared. Their loyalty was first and foremost to Catholic Christendom, but when they professed an ethnic identity, they referred to themselves as "Slovin" and "Illyrian" (a sort of forerunner of Catholic baroque pan-Slavism ) AND Croat – these 30-odd writers over the span of c. 350 years always saw themselves as Croats first and never as part of a Serbian nation. It should also be noted that, in the pre-national era, Catholic religious orientation did not necessarily equate with Croat ethnic identity in Dalmatia. A Croatian follower of Vuk Karadžić, Ivan Broz , noted that for a Dalmatian to identify oneself as a Serb was seen as foreign as identifying oneself as Macedonian or Greek. Vatroslav Jagić pointed out in 1864: "As I have mentioned in the preface, history knows only two national names in these parts—Croatian and Serbian. As far as Dubrovnik is concerned, the Serbian name was never in use; on the contrary, the Croatian name was frequently used and gladly referred to" "At the end of the 15th century , sermons and poems were exquisitely crafted in the Croatian language by those men whose names are widely renowned by deep learning and piety."
(From _The History of the Croatian language_, Zagreb , 1864.)
On the other hand, the opinion of Jagić from 1864 is argued not to have firm grounds. When Jagić says "Croatian", he refers to a few cases referring to the Dubrovnik vernacular as _ilirski_ (Illyrian). This was a common name for all Slavic vernaculars in Dalmatian cities among the Roman inhabitants. In the meantime, other written monuments are found that mention _srpski_, _lingua serviana_ (= Serbian), and some that mention Croatian. By far the most competent Serbian scientist on the Dubrovnik language issue, Milan Rešetar , who was born in Dubrovnik himself, wrote behalf of language characteristics: "The one who thinks that Croatian and Serbian are two separate languages must confess that Dubrovnik always (linguistically) used to be Serbian."
Finally, the former _medieval_ texts from Dubrovnik and Montenegro dating before the 16th century were neither true Štokavian nor Serbian, but mostly specific a Jekavian-Čakavian that was nearer to actual Adriatic islanders in Croatia.
Nationalists have conflicting views about the language(s). The nationalists among the Croats conflictingly claim either that they speak an entirely separate language from Serbs and Bosnians or that these two peoples have, due to the longer lexicographic tradition among Croats, somehow "borrowed" their standard languages from them. Bosniak nationalists claim that both Croats and Serbs have "appropriated" the Bosnian language , since Ljudevit Gaj and Vuk Karadžić preferred the Neoštokavian- Ijekavian dialect, widely spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina , as the basis for language standardization, whereas the nationalists among the Serbs claim either that any divergence in the language is artificial, or claim that the Štokavian dialect is theirs and the Čakavian Croats'— in more extreme formulations Croats have "taken" or "stolen" their language from the Serbs.
Proponents of unity among Southern Slavs claim that there is a single language with normal dialectal variations. The term "Serbo-Croatian" (or synonyms) is not officially used in any of the successor countries of former Yugoslavia.
In Serbia, the Serbian language is the official one, while both Serbian and Croatian are official in the province of Vojvodina . A large Bosniak minority is present in the southwest region of Sandžak , but the "official recognition" of Bosnian language is moot. Bosnian is an optional course in 1st and 2nd grade of the elementary school, while it is also in official use in the municipality of Novi Pazar . However, its nomenclature is controversial, as there is incentive that it is referred to as "Bosniak" (_bošnjački_) rather than "Bosnian" (_bosanski_) (see Bosnian language for details).
Croatian is the official language of Croatia, while Serbian is also official in municipalities with significant Serb population.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, all three languages are recorded as official but in practice and media, mostly Bosnian and Serbian are applied. Confrontations have on occasion been absurd. The academic Muhamed Filipović , in an interview to Slovenian television, told of a local court in a Croatian district requesting a paid translator to translate from Bosnian to Croatian before the trial could proceed.
WORDS OF SERBO-CROATIAN ORIGIN
_See Category:English terms derived from Serbo-Croatian on Wiktionary_
* _ Cravat _, from French _cravate_ "Croat", by analogy with Flemish _Krawaat_ and German _Krabate_, from Serbo-Croatian _Hrvat_, as cravats were characteristic of Croatian dress * _ Polje _, from Serbo-Croatian _polje_ "field" * _ Slivovitz _, from German _Slibowitz_, from Bulgarian _slivovitza_ or Serbo-Croatian _šljivovica_ "plum brandy", from Old Slavic *sliva "plum" (cognate with English sloe ) * _ Tamburitza _, Serbo-Croatian diminutive of _tambura_, from Turkish, from Persian _ṭambūr_ "tanbur " * _Uvala _, from Serbo-Croatian _uvala_ "hollow"
* Differences between Serbo-Croatian standard varieties * Dialects of Serbo-Croatian * Language secessionism in Serbo-Croatian * Mutual intelligibility * Pluricentric Serbo- Croatian language * Serbo-Croatian relative clauses * Serbo-Croatian grammar * Serbo-Croatian kinship * Serbo-Croatian phonology * Shtokavian dialect * South Slavic dialect continuum * Standard language
NOTES AND REFERENCES
* ^ _A_ _B_ Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia . The Republic of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence on 17 February 2008, but Serbia continues to claim it as part of its own sovereign territory . The two governments began to normalise relations in 2013, as part of the Brussels Agreement . Kosovo has received formal recognition as an independent state from 111 out of 193 United Nations member states .
* ^ "The Slavic Languages" (PDF). _Cambridge Language Surveys_. Retrieved 19 June 2017. * ^ "Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo" (PDF). p. 2. Retrieved 2012-08-17. * ^ "B92.net". B92.net. Retrieved 2013-09-01. * ^ "Minority Rights Group International : Czech Republic : Czech Republic Overview". Minorityrights.org. Retrieved 2012-10-24. * ^ "Minority Rights Group International : Macedonia : Macedonia Overview". Minorityrights.org. Retrieved 2012-10-24. * ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian, eds. (2016). "Molise–SKB". _ Glottolog 2.7 _. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. * ^ _A_ _B_ Wells, John C. (2008), _Longman Pronunciation Dictionary_ (3rd ed.), Longman, ISBN 978-1-4058-8118-0 * ^ _A_ _B_ Jones, Daniel (2003) , Peter Roach, James Hartmann and Jane Setter, eds., _English Pronouncing Dictionary_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 3-12-539683-2 CS1 maint: Uses editors parameter (link ) * ^ Čamdžić, Amela; Hudson, Richard. "Serbo-Croat-Bosnian clitics and Word Grammar" (PDF). UCL Psychology and Language Sciences. Retrieved 11 September 2013. * ^ Alexander, Ronelle (2006), _Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian – A Grammar with Sociolinguistic Commentary_, The University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 978-0-299-21194-3 * ^ _A_ _B_ Thomas, Paul-Louis; Osipov, Vladimir (2012). _Grammaire du bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe_ . Collection de grammaires de l'Institut d'études slaves ; vol. 8 (in French). Paris: Institut d'études slaves. p. 624. ISBN 9782720404900 . OCLC 805026664 . Lay summary. * ^ Mørk, Henning (2002). _Serbokroatisk grammatik: substantivets morfologi_ . Arbejdspapirer ; vol. 1 (in Danish). Århus: Slavisk Institut, Århus Universitet. p. unpaginated (Preface). OCLC 471591123 . * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 130–132. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Busch, Birgitta; Kelly-Holmes, Helen (2004). _Language, Discourse and Borders in the Yugoslav Successor States_. Multilingual Matters. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85359-732-9 . * ^ "The same language is referred to by different names, Serbian (srpski), Serbo-Croat (in Croatia: hrvatsko-srpski), Bosnian (bosanski), based on political and ethnic grounds. the names Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are politically determined and refer to the same language with possible slight variations." (Brown & Anderson 2006 , p. 294) * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2010). "Moderne Nationalbezeichnungen und Texte aus vergangenen Jahrhunderten" . _Zeitschrift für Balkanologie_ (in German). 46 (1): 40–41. ISSN 0044-2356 . ZDB-ID 201058-6. Archived from the original on 23 August 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2014. * ^ Lencek 1976 , p. 46. * ^ Pohl 1996 , pp. 209–210. * ^ Lencek 1976 , p. 49. * ^ Brown & Anderson 2006 , p. 259. * ^ "In 1993 the authorities in Sarajevo adopted a new language law (Službeni list Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, 18/93): In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ijekavian standard literary language of the three constitutive nations is officially used, designated by one of the three terms: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian." (Bugarski & Hawkesworth 2006 , p. 142) * ^ Brozović, Dalibor (1988). "Jezik, srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski" . _Jezik, srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski : izvadak iz II izdanja Enciklopedije Jugoslavije_ (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Jugoslavenski Leksikografski zavod "Miroslav Krleža". p. 4. ISBN 86-7053-014-7 . OCLC 645757653 . * ^ Richter Malabotta, Melita (2004). "Semantics of War in Former Yugoslavia". In Busch, Brigitta; Kelly-Holmes, Helen. _Language, Discourse and Borders in the Yugoslav Successor States_. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. p. 81. OCLC 803615012 . * ^ Mappes-Niediek 2005 , p. 30. * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2010). "Ideologija nacionalnog identiteta i nacionalne kulture" (PDF). In Ajdačić, Dejan; Lazarević Di Đakomo, Persida. _U čast Pera Jakobsena: zbornik radova_. Studia in honorem ; vol. 1 (in Serbo-Croatian). Beograd: SlovoSlavia. pp. 225–239. ISBN 978-86-87807-02-0 . OCLC 723062357 . Archived from the original on 23 August 2012. Retrieved 28 March 2015. * ^ Obst, Ulrich (2004). "Zum genitivus qualitatis und zu alternativen Möglichkeiten in den drei ’Buddenbrooks’-Übersetzungen aus dem kroatischen und serbischen Sprachgebiet". In Okuka, Miloš; Schweier, Ulrich. _Festschrift für Peter Rehder zum 65. Geburtstag_. Welt der Slaven ; vol. 21 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 212. OCLC 55018584 . * ^ Tomasz Kamusella. _The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe_. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. pp. 228, 297. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Price, Glanville (1998). _Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe_. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. p. 425. ISBN 0-631-19286-7 . * ^ Kapetanovic, Amir (2005). "HRVATSKA SREDNJOVJEKOVNA LATINICA" (PDF). _HRVATSKA SREDNJOVJEKOVNA LATINICA_. * ^ Fučić, Branko (September 1971). "Najstariji hrvatski glagoljski natpisi". _Slovo _ (in Serbo-Croatian). Old Church Slavonic Institute . 21. * ^ "Hrvoje\'s Missal ~ 1403–1404". Retrieved 9 March 2012. * ^ "VINODOLSKI ZAKON (1288)". Retrieved 9 March 2012. * ^ "Istarski Razvod". Retrieved 9 March 2012. * ^ "Vatikanski hrvatski molitvenik". Retrieved 9 March 2012. * ^ "Gammel ordbok i ny drakt" (in Norwegian). University of Oslo . 2012-04-10. * ^ Tanović-Miller, Naza (2001). _Testimony of a Bosnian_. Texas A _"Turkish-Bosnian" dictionary, one of the first Slavic dictionaries in Europe, was written by a Bosnian ethnographer and poet, Muhamed Hevai Uskufi, from Tuzla in 1631_. * ^ Greenberg 2004 , p. 24. * ^ Sugar, Peter F. (1963). _Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina: 1878–1918_. University of Washington Press. p. 201. * ^ Ramet, Sabrina P. (2008). "Nationalism and the 'Idiocy' of the Countryside: The Case of Serbia". _Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia at Peace and at War: Selected Writings, 1983–2007_. LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 74–76. ISBN 3-03735-912-9 . * ^ Velikonja, Mitja (1992). _ Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina_. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-226-7 . * ^ Tomasevich, Jozo (1969). _Contemporary Yugoslavia_. University of California Press. pp. 8–9. * ^ David M. Crowe (13 September 2013). _Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and International Legal Responses_. Routledge. pp. 61–. ISBN 978-1-317-98682-9 . * ^ _A_ _B_ Greenberg 2004 , p. 115. * ^ _A_ _B_ Jonke, Ljudevit (1968). "Razvoj hrvatskoga književnog jezika u 20. stoljeću" . _ Jezik _ (in Serbo-Croatian). 16 (1): 18. ISSN 0021-6925 . * ^ Kordić 2010 , pp. 303–304. * ^ _A_ _B_ Babić, Stjepan (2004). _Hrvanja hrvatskoga_ (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Školska knjiga. p. 36. ISBN 953-0-61428-4 . * ^ Milutinović, Zoran (2011). "Review of the Book _ Jezik i nacionalizam_" (PDF). _ The Slavonic and East European Review _. 89 (3): 522–523. ISSN 0037-6795 . OCLC 744233642 . ZDB-ID 209925-1. Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 25 May 2014. * ^ Jonke, Ljudevit (1955). "Drugi i treći sastanak Pravopisne komisije" . _Jezik_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 4 (2): 59. ISSN 0021-6925 . * ^ Jonke, Ljudevit (1961). "Pravopis hrvatskosrpskoga književnog jezika" . _Jezik_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 9 (2): 57–59. ISSN 0021-6925 . * ^ "SOS ili tek alibi za nasilje nad jezikom" (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: _Forum_. 16 March 2012. pp. 38–39. ISSN 1848-204X . Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2013. * ^ Gröschel 2009 , p. 72. * ^ Mappes-Niediek 2005 , pp. 18, 64. * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 41–42. * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ _D_ Gak, Vladimir G. (1989). "K tipologii form jazykovoj politiki" . _Voprosy jazykoznanija_ (in Russian). 5: 122–123. * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 47–48. * ^ Gröschel 2003 , pp. 160–161. * ^ Blum 2002 , p. 65. * ^ Blum 2002 , p. 81. * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 73–79. * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 69–80. * ^ Kordić 2010 , pp. 291–292. * ^ Busch, Brigitta; Kelly-Holmes, Helen, eds. (2004). "Semantics of War in Former Yugoslavia". _Language, Discourse and Borders in the Yugoslav Successor States_. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 51, 54. OCLC 803615012 . * ^ Kordić 2010 , pp. 294–295. * ^ Gröschel 2009 , p. 38. * ^ Kordić 2010 , p. 299. * ^ Ammon 1995 , pp. 484, 494–497. * ^ "die Tatsache, dass Sprachen (in ihrem Prestige, ihrer Erlernbarkeit etc.) nicht gleich sind und auch per Gesetz nicht gleich gemacht werden können" (Blum 2002 , p. 170) * ^ "Post-Yugoslav ‘Common Language’ Declaration Challenges Nationalism". Balkan Insight. * ^ "Is Serbo-Croatian a language?". Economist. * ^ "Raziskava Položaj in status pripadnikov narodov nekdanje Jugoslavije vRS.pdf" (PDF) (in Slovenian). * ^ Kordić 2006 , p. 5. * ^ (in Serbo-Croatian) Gramatika hrvatskosrpskoga jezika, Group of Authors (Ivan Brabec, Mate Hraste and Sreten Živković), Zagreb, 1968. * ^ E.g., big coastal Croatian cities Rijeka and Split together with their hinterland become basically completely Štokavianised during the 20th century, which had been Čakavian-speaking urban centres. * ^ Kafadar, Enisa (2009). "Bosnisch, Kroatisch, Serbisch – Wie spricht man eigentlich in Bosnien-Herzegowina?" . In Henn-Memmesheimer, Beate; Franz, Joachim. _Die Ordnung des Standard und die Differenzierung der Diskurse; Teil 1_ (in German). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. p. 103. OCLC 699514676 . Retrieved 9 August 2014.
* ^ Bunčić, Daniel (2008). "Die (Re-)Nationalisierung der serbokroatischen Standards" . In Kempgen, Sebastian. _Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Ohrid, 2008_. Welt der Slaven (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 93. OCLC 238795822 . * ^ Thomas 2003 , p. 325. * ^ McLennan, Sean (1996). "Sociolinguistic Analysis of "Serbo-Croatian"" (PDF). _Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics_. 18: 107. ISSN 0823-0579 . Retrieved 10 August 2014. * ^ Pohl 1996 , p. 219. * ^ Gröschel 2003 , pp. 180–181. * ^ Blum 2002 , pp. 125–126. * ^ Brozović, Dalibor (1992). " Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G . _Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations_. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 347–380. OCLC 24668375 . * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Policentrični standardni jezik" (PDF). In Badurina, Lada; Pranjković, Ivo ; Silić, Josip. _Jezični varijeteti i nacionalni identiteti_ (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Disput. pp. 85–89. ISBN 978-953-260-054-4 . OCLC 437306433 . Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 3 May 2014. (ÖNB). * ^ Ammon 1995 , p. 46. * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" (PDF). In Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian. _Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002_. Slavistishe Beiträge; vol. 434 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 141. ISBN 3-87690-885-X . OCLC 56198470 . Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 9 February 2015. (ÖNB). * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2008). "Nationale Varietäten der serbokroatischen Sprache" (PDF). In Golubović, Biljana; Raecke, Jochen. _Bosnisch – Kroatisch – Serbisch als Fremdsprachen an den Universitäten der Welt_. Die Welt der Slaven, Sammelbände – Sborniki ; vol. 31 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 95. ISBN 978-3-86688-032-0 . OCLC 244788988 . Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 7 October 2014. (ÖNB). * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Plurizentrische Sprachen, Ausbausprachen, Abstandsprachen und die Serbokroatistik" . _Zeitschrift für Balkanologie_ (in German). 45 (2): 213–214. ISSN 0044-2356 . OCLC 680567046 . ZDB-ID 201058-6. Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2013. * ^ "10", _2006 Constitution of Serbia_ * ^ _Constitution of Montenegroquote=The official language in Montenegro shall be Montenegrin.Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian shall also be in the official use._, 2007 * ^ "Kordić’s publications in \'\'Književna republika\'\'". Bib.irb.hr. Retrieved 2013-09-01. ZDB-ID 2122129-7. * ^ Petković, Nikola (5 September 2010). "Mrsko zrcalo pred licima jezikoslovaca" (in Serbo-Croatian). Rijeka: _ Novi list _. p. 7 in the arts section _Mediteran_. ISSN 1334-1545 . Archived from the original on 5 July 2012. Retrieved 18 July 2012. * ^ Šnajder, Slobodan (10 October 2010). "Lingvistička bojna" (in Serbo-Croatian). Rijeka: _ Novi list _. p. 6 in the arts section _Mediteran_. ISSN 1334-1545 . Archived from the original on 5 July 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012. * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2003). "Demagogija umjesto znanosti (odgovor Daliboru Brozoviću)" (PDF). _Književna republika_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 1 (7–8): 176–202. ISSN 1334-1057 . Archived from the original on 23 August 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2014. (CROLIB). * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Autizam hrvatske filologije (odgovor Ivi Pranjkoviću)" (PDF). _Književna republika_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 2 (7–8): 254–280. ISSN 1334-1057 . Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 1 March 2015. (NSK). * ^ Mandić, Igor (21 November 2010). "Svojom polemikom možda pokušava izbrisati naš identitet... Što, zapravo, hoće ta žena?" (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: _ Jutarnji list _. p. 19. ISSN 1331-5692 . Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 12 August 2013. * ^ Kordić 2010 . * ^ Gröschel 2009 . * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Svijet o nama: Bernhard Gröschel, _Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik_" (PDF). _Književna republika_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 7 (10–12): 316–330. ISSN 1334-1057 . Archived from the original on 23 August 2012. Retrieved 6 October 2013. (NSK). * ^ Trudgill, Peter (2003). _A glossary of sociolinguistics_. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 119. OCLC 50768041 . * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2007). "La langue croate, serbe, bosniaque et monténégrine" (PDF). In Madelain, Anne. _Au sud de l'Est_. vol. 3 (in French). Paris: Non Lieu. p. 74. ISBN 978-2-35270-036-4 . OCLC 182916790 . Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 3 February 2015. * ^ Brozović, Dalibor (2002). "Europske integracije i hrvatski jezik" . _Jezik_ (in Serbo-Croatian). 49 (4): 124. ISSN 0021-6925 . * ^ Kloss, Heinz (1976). "Abstandsprachen und Ausbausprachen" . In Göschel, Joachim; Nail, Norbert; van der Els, Gaston. _Zur Theorie des Dialekts: Aufsätze aus 100 Jahren Forschung_. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie and Linguistik, Beihefte, n.F., Heft 16. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. p. 303. OCLC 2598722 . * ^ Pohl 1996 , p. 214. * ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Le serbo-croate aujourd\'hui: entre aspirations politiques et faits linguistiques" . _Revue des études slaves_ (in French). 75 (1): 34–36. ISSN 0080-2557 . OCLC 754207802 . ZDB-ID 208723-6. Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 2 April 2014. (ÖNB). * ^ Blum 2002 , p. 134. * ^ Haji Omar, Asmah (1992). "Malay as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G . _Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations_. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 401–419. ISBN 3-11-012855-1 . OCLC 24668375 . Retrieved 28 March 2015. * ^ Dua, Hans Raj (1992). "Hindi- Urdu as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G . _Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations_. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 381–400. ISBN 3-11-012855-1 . OCLC 24668375 . Retrieved 11 January 2014. * ^ Ammon 1995 , pp. 154–174. * ^ _A_ _B_ Mladenovic. Kratka istorija srpskog književnog jezika. Beograd 2004, 67 * ^ S. Zekovic ">(PDF). (65.8 KB), 30 April 2002, page 1 * ^ "cravat". _ Oxford English Dictionary _ (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press . September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) * ^ "polje". _ Oxford English Dictionary _ (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press . September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) * ^ "slovovitz". _ Oxford English Dictionary _ (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press . September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) * ^ "tamburitza". _ Oxford English Dictionary _ (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press . September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) * ^ "uvala". _ Oxford English Dictionary _ (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press . September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
* Ammon, Ulrich (1995). _Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: das Problem der nationalen Varietäten_ (in German). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. p. 575. OCLC 33981055 . * Blum, Daniel (2002). _Sprache und Politik : Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945–1991)_ . Beiträge zur Südasienforschung ; vol. 192 (in German). Würzburg: Ergon. p. 200. ISBN 3-89913-253-X . OCLC 51961066 . * Brown, Edward Keith; Anderson, Anne, eds. (2006). _Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics_. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 0-08-044299-4 . OCLC 3945869 . * Bugarski, Ranko ; Hawkesworth, Celia, eds. (2006). _Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands_. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers. p. 325. ISBN 0-89357-298-5 . OCLC 52858529 . * Greenberg, Robert David (2004). _Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and Its Disintegration_. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 188. ISBN 0-19-925815-5 . * Gröschel, Bernhard (2003). "Postjugoslavische Amtssprachenregelungen – Soziolinguistische Argumente gegen die Einheitlichkeit des Serbokroatischen?" . _Srpski jezik_ (in German). 8 (1–2): 135–196. ISSN 0354-9259 . Retrieved 18 May 2015. (COBISS-Sr). * —— (2009). _Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit_ . Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. p. 451. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3 . LCCN 2009473660 . OCLC 428012015 . OL 15295665W . COBISS 43144034. * Kordić, Snježana (2006), _Serbo-Croatian_, Languages of the World/Materials; 148, Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa, ISBN 3-89586-161-8 , OCLC 37959860 , OL 2863538W * —— (2010). _ Jezik i nacionalizam_ (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. p. 430. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5 . LCCN 2011520778 . OCLC 729837512 . OL 15270636W . Archived from the original on 8 July 2012. Retrieved 21 April 2015. * Lencek, Rado (1976). "A few remarks for the history of the term 'Serbocroatian' language". _Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku_. 19 (1): 45–53. ISSN 0514-6143 . * Mappes-Niediek, Norbert (2005). _Die Ethno-Falle: der Balkan-Konflikt und was Europa daraus lernen kann_ (in German). Berlin: Christoph Links Verlag. p. 224. ISBN 978-3-86153-367-2 . OCLC 61665869 . * Pohl, Hans-Dieter (1996). "Serbokroatisch – Rückblick und Ausblick" . In Ohnheiser, Ingeborg. _Wechselbeziehungen zwischen slawischen Sprachen, Literaturen und Kulturen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : Akten der Tagung aus Anlaß des 25jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Slawistik an der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 25. – 27. Mai 1995_. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Slavica aenipontana ; vol. 4 (in German). Innsbruck: Non Lieu. pp. 205–219. OCLC 243829127 . * Thomas, Paul-Louis (2003). "Le serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe): de l’étude d’une langue à l’identité des langues" . _Revue des études slaves]_ (in French). 74 (2–3): 311–325. ISSN 0080-2557 . OCLC 754204160 . ZDB-ID 208723-6. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
* Banac, Ivo: _Main Trends in the Croatian Language Question_. Yale University Press, 1984. * Franolić, Branko: _A Historical Survey of Literary Croatian_. Nouvelles éditions Latines, Paris, 1984. * —— (1988). _Language Policy in Yugoslavia with special reference to Croatian_. Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines. * ——; Žagar, Mateo (2008). _A Historical Outline of Literary Croatian & The Glagolitic Heritage of Croatian Culture_. London & Zagreb: Erasmus & CSYPN. ISBN 978-953-6132-80-5 . * Ivić, Pavle: _Die serbokroatischen Dialekte_. the Hague, 1958. * Jakobsen, Per (2008). "O strukturalno-lingvističkim konstantama srpskohrvatskog jezika (inventar fonema i fonotaktička struktura)" . In Ostojić, Branislav. _Jezička situacija u Crnoj Gori – norma i standardizacija_ (in Serbo-Croatian). Podgorica: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti. pp. 25–34. ISBN 978-86-7215-207-4 . (COBISS-CG). * Kristophson, Jürgen (2000). "Vom Widersinn der Dialektologie: Gedanken zum Štokavischen" . _Zeitschrift für Balkanologie_ (in German). 36 (2): 178–186. ISSN 0044-2356 . ZDB-ID 201058-6. * Magner, Thomas F.: _ Zagreb Kajkavian dialect_. Pennsylvania State University, 1966. * —— (1991). _Introduction to the Croatian and Serbian Language (Revised ed.)_. Pennsylvania State University. * Merk, Hening (2008). "Neka pragmatična zapažanja o postojanju srpskohrvatskog jezika". In Ostojić, Branislav. _Jezička situacija u Crnoj Gori – norma i standardizacija_ (in Serbo-Croatian). Podgorica: Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti. pp. 295–299. ISBN 978-86-7215-207-4 . (COBISS-CG). * Murray Despalatović, Elinor: _ Ljudevit Gaj and the Illyrian Movement_. Columbia University Press, 1975. * Zekovic, Sreten Alt, Theresa (2004), _A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian_ (PDF), SEELRC
LINKS TO RELATED ARTICLES
* v * t * e
_ Languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Bosnian * Croatian * Serbian
* Albanian * Czech * German * Hungarian * Italian * Ladino * Macedonian * Montenegrin * Polish * Romanian * Rusyn * Slovak * Slovene * Turkish * Ukrainian * Yiddish
* v * t * e
Languages of Croatia
* Bosnian * Czech * Hungarian * Italian * Ruthenian * Serbian * Slovakian
See Also: Minority languages of Croatia
* v * t * e
Languages of Montenegro
* Albanian * Bosnian * Croatian * Serbian
See Also: Minority languages of Montenegro
* v * t * e
Languages of Serbia
* Albanian * Bosnian * Croatian * Hungarian * Slovak * Romanian * Rusyn
See Also: Minority languages of Serbia
* v * t * e
* Czech * Kashubian * _Knaanic _ * _Polabian _ * _Middle Polish _ * _Old Polish _ * Polish * _Pomeranian _ * Slovak * _Slovincian _ * Lower Sorbian * Upper Sorbian
* Bulgarian * Macedonian
* Bosnian * Croatian * ( Kajkavian , generally regarded as a subset of Croatian) * Montenegrin * Serbian
* Interslavic * Slovio
* _ Slavonic-Serbian _
Separate Slavic dialects and microlanguages
* Balachka * Banat Bulgarian * Burgenland Croatian * Carpathian Rusyn * Canadian Ukrainian * Chakavian * Cieszyn Silesian * Czechoslovak * Eastern Slovak * Kajkavian * Lach * Lesser Polish * Masovian * Masurian * Moravian * Molise Croatian * Pannonian Rusyn * Podhale * Prekmurje Slovene * Resian * Shtokavian * Silesian * Slavic dialects of Greece * Surzhyk * Torlakian * Trasianka * West Polesian
* Slavic first palatalization * Slavic second palatalization * Slavic liquid metathesis and pleophony * Dybo\'s law * Havlík\'s law * Hirt\'s law * Illič-Svityč\'s law * Ivšić\'s law * Meillet\'s law * Pedersen\'s law * Ruki sound law * Winter\'s law
_Italics_ indicate extinct languages .
* v * t * e