Read story Gramatika Nemackog Jezika Zora Jovanovic Pdf 23 by 23 Crnogorska redakcija staroslovjenskoga knjievnog jezika i. English to German + Pravopis i gramatika crnogorska jezika, Jan 5, Na netu se nalazi starije izdanje od Novo izdanje pravopisa i. The Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (Crnogorska Akademija Nauka i Umet- . NIKČEVIĆ, Vojislav: Crnogorska gramatika (Montenegrin Grammar).
|Published (Last):||19 September 2006|
|PDF File Size:||4.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.90 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up.
The Case of Montenegro. She is interested in the Balkan region. Currently she focuses on the issues of identity as well as political and constitutional transformations in Montenegro. It remained forever uncompleted, because God condemned the human race to everlasting linguistic conflict. Eric Hobsbawm1 I n all the matters concerning the relation between the language and identity, an issue of the language — national identity relation has an especially important position.
The formula one nation — one state — one language, which is the essence of the concept of a nation state, rendered the language a specific demiurge of national identity, a link holding a nation together in one organic whole.
The source of this concept was the conviction of a virtually mystical relation between a nation and its national language, so characteristic of German Romanticism Herder and Fichtewhich had a considerable impact on national movements in Europe Edwards,pp.
This view was reflected, inter alia, in the Vienna Literary Agreement of which resulted in the creation of the literary Serbo-Croatian language.
Serbo-Croatian – Wikipedia
The agreement began with the statement: Less than one and gramatjka half centuries later, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the idea of the need for a separate language as a sine qua non 1 The citation comes from: The study was conducted at author’s own expense.
No competing interests have been declared. The Case of Montenegro condition of a nation turned up like a bad penny, this time manifesting itself in the disin- tegration of this language. So as to illustrate this thesis, he gave an example of, inter alia, Croats, seeing a precedent for the future in Croatian actions related to making their language independent2.
When Hobsbawm wrote his essay, the disintegration of the Serbo-Croatian language had already been a fait accompli.
The language identity was proclaimed not only by Croats, but also by Bosniaks during peace negotiations taking place in Dayton, aimed at ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. All three parties — Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks — demanded interpreters, as it turned out that they no longer understood one another Greenberg,p.
Slightly later than ten years after the Dayton Agreement in — apart from English, in the Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian languages, thus symbolically consolidating, inter alia, the new linguistic reality in the territory of the former Yugoslavia — the language identity was also proclaimed by Montenegrins. The article analyses the situation of Montenegro on the basis of the above mentioned assumption.
Before we get down to the analysis, the specificity of the Montenegrin situation of identity should be presented to the reader at least very briefly. The complexity of the issue of the Montenegrin identity seems to be inversely proportional to the size of this former 2 “If the Croats can create a separate language for gramattika out of the unified Serbocroat which their forefathers con- structed to unify crnogorksa southern Slavs — not with much success — then anybody can”.
The Case of Montenegro Yugoslav republic, which was the smallest one. It concerns a phenomenon of double identity characteristic of the Orthodox population living in Montenegro, which is the majority in this country4. This leads to the fundamental question: Or are they simply Serbs of regional specificity? Or perhaps are gramati,a a separate nation, even not really Slavic, but of mixed, Slavic-Albanian-Vlach origin?
Of course, this analysis is not even an attempt to give answers to such complex questions; putting gramarika questions is only going to show how ambiguous this phenomenon is. Contemporary dilemmas of the Montenegrin identity are connected to a large extent with the complex process of building the Montenegrin state which historically oscillated between two national ideas — independent Montenegro versus Montenegro as a part of a larger state object — Serbian or Yugoslav. Moreover, during gramattika stages of the evolution of the Montenegrin identity we observed a strong sense of crnkgorska membership of Monte- negrins, their primary religious identification conditioned by the affiliation to the Grramatika church, building the strong regional identity and their increasing awareness of the own national identity.
In the centre of attention of this work there are lin- guistic issues in their relationship with the processes of identity occurring in Montenegro after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia. The text is an attempt to answer the question of crhogorska role the language played in the process of reconstruction and reinterpretation of the Montenegrin national identity. Basi- cally, some Montenegrins describe themselves exclusively as Montenegrins, others tend to identify with Serbianness, like Serbs who according to the latest census accounted for I wrote crnogorzka this in: The agreement pro- vided two variants of the common language: Western Croatian and Eastern Serbian garmatika, and at the same time the statuses of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets were recognised as crnotorska, as well as two pronunciations — ijekavian and ekavian.
Although the agreement contained a mention about the Montenegrin nation which was in accordance with the previous granting such a status to Montenegrinsthis nation was not provided with its own variant of the language. It should be noted that at the end of the s some Montenegrin intel- lectuals following Croats started to question the existing linguistic model Greenberg,p.
But after the breakup of Yugoslavia, Montenegrins did not elevate their sub variant of the Serbian-Croatian language to the status of an independent standard language. Firstly, the language policy in the FRY obviously favoured Cyrillic, the primacy of which over the Latin alphabet resulted from the federal basic law. The Case of Montenegro alphabet Greenberg,p. Secondly, the question of pronunciation became controversial. For the Montenegrin opposition circles it was the alarming signal of a risk of the Ser- bian linguistic and cultural hegemony.
Intellectuals gathered around Matica crnogorska started to promote the idea of the Montenegrin language identity.
These voices, initially marginal, were intensifying when the political discord between the Serbian and Montenegrin elites was deepening in the late s.
The Case of Montenegro concerning the questions of identity deepening at that time.
Zaštićeni blog › Prijava
It was repeated many times in public discourse — as an attempt to find a compromise between the supporters and the opponents of the Montenegrin language — in the context of the disputes on the name of the official language, but finally it has never gone beyond the discussion.
In the new political reality which appeared after the Montenegrin referendum of and, as a result, the establishment of the independent Montenegrin state, the ruling elites of Montenegro were in favour of the official legitimisation of the Montenegrin language. As a consequence, the constitution of independent Montenegro adopted in October said: The same applied to the idea of the language independence that in Montenegro was supported by neither political elites nor local cultural-scientific institutions as, for instance, the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts Crnogorska akademija nauka i umjetnosti, CANUor even by the majority of Montenegrins.
Nevertheless, at the close of the 20th century Montenegrin pro-independence intellectuals, aiming at the reconstruc- tion of the separate Montenegrin identity in all its aspects, turned to, inter alia, the idea of the language identity of Montenegrins. As in other similar cases, it was not only about changing the way of defining the language — they wanted to both determine its character- istics and indicate how it is different from the languages of their neighbours cf.
Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. The Case of Montenegro In the case of the Montenegrin language, while seeking differences an accent was quite naturally put on how to distinguish it from Serbian Greenberg,p.
For Montenegrin intellectuals had to reconstruct the distinct Montenegrin identity which to a large extent was in opposition to the Serbian identity, taking into account at least the widespread conviction of the affiliation of Serbs and Montenegrins to one nation — both among the former and the latter, willing to identify with Serbianness. To justify the linguistic distinctiveness of Montenegrins, it was found, inter alia, that dialects used in Montenegro were genuinely Montenegrin and not Serbian9, and that the legacy of the 19th century Montenegrin writers belonged to a separate Montenegrin — and not Serbian — literary tradition Greenberg,p.
Among the artists of literature who were invoked in this context there were writers living and working in Montenegro in the 19th century: Similarly, the other two men- tioned authors used in their works the specific variant of ijekavica, spoken in the Montenegrin territory Greenberg,p.
This could therefore prove the linguistic distinctness of Montenegrins. The fate of The Mountain Wreath illustrates well the complexity of the cultural-literary aspect of the discussions on the Montenegrin identity and the Montenegrin language.
The scope of these dialects goes beyond the borders of Montenegro. This researcher in the s became the leading exponent of the idea of Montenegrin language identity.
For he claimed that the Montenegrin language derived directly from the Polabian language extinct in the 18th century. In accor- dance with the above concept, Serbs until the 16th century used only ekavica similar to that used by Belarusians. It was to prove that Montenegrins were the only authentic carriers of ijekavica, while in the Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian languages it was a secondary element.
The Polabian origin of the Montenegrin language was proved, among others, by three phonemes occurring in it: The over dialectal composition constructed in such a manner was complemented with the linguistic elements of the 19th century literary works. In this way the scholar created an artificial model of the Montenegrin language for Montenegrins, and this language was extremely different from the spoken language and thus had little chance of acceptance by the majority of the population.
In independent Montenegro linguists, writers and columnists were entrusted with the development of the linguistic standard of Montenegrin. So as to do this, in January the Montenegrin authorities appointed the Council for the Codification of the Mon- tenegrin Language Savjet za standardizaciju crnogorskog jezika — a body consisting of thirteen people whose task was to develop the spelling principles, grammar and dictionary of the Montenegrin language.
Shortly after the start-up, the members of the Council were divided by the dispute over the shape of language reforms, as it turned out that their visions of standardisation were completely different. The Case of Montenegro stand, proposing the introduction of only minor changes to the current linguistic norm in Montenegro. Ceaseless disputes and polarisation of research opinions of the members forced the Council to finish its activity.
The final versions of spelling and grammar of the Montene- grin language were not elaborated. At the beginning of the Ministry of Education and Science of Montenegro, aiming at terminating the codification works, formed a body — this time a three-person Expert Commission for the Standardisation of the Montenegrin Lan- guage Ekspertska komisija za standardizaciju crnogorskog jezika.
One year later also Gramatika crnogorskog jezika was published, which together with Pravopis determined the standard framework of the Montenegrin language Jaroszewicz,pp. Both works met with criticism of the Montenegrin public opinion, media and scientific circles. Both the credibility of their authors and the legitimacy of the language reforms described in them were questioned. The composition of the Commission, in which there were two foreigners and one philosopher by education13, aroused reservations as to their competence in the field of reforming the Montenegrin language.
The developed norm of the Montenegrin language was criticised because of its archaism and diverging from the Montenegrin linguistic practice. Apart from the introduction of two additional letters, 13 The commission comprised: More about this see: At the same time the Montenegrin authorities took steps to strengthen the institutional dimension of the language policy.
In July the Montenegrin authorities also established the Institute for the Montenegrin Language and Literature, four years later transformed into the Department of the Montenegrin Language and Literature with its seat in Cetinje.
In the context of the discussed subject matter the unrecognised Montenegrin Orthodox Church Crnogorska Pravoslavna Crkva, CPC and its position on the linguistic changes are also worth mentioning. It is against the dominant position of the Serbian Orthodox Church Srpska pravoslavna crkva, SPC in Montenegro, and in terms of the language it represents a stand different than the SPC, opting for the affirmation of the Montenegrin language as an important pillar of identity.
In such an approach the refusal to recognise both the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and the Montenegrin language means denying the existence of the Montenegrin nation. Pursuant to the agreement ofconcluded between the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the united Serbian Orthodox Church was established, the jurisdiction of which also spread over the area of Montenegro.
The movement for the restoration of the Autocephalous Montenegrin Orthodox Church got a new impetus after the breakup of Yugoslavia. A pro-independence faction initiated the restoration of the CPC, which took place in The Case of Montenegro The narrativisation of the language In the Montenegrin discourse, thematising the name and identity of the language, we can distinguish several key threads forming the narrative of the Montenegrin language, which is a part of a wider Montenegrin narrative of identity.
Another theme in the narrative on the Montenegrin language concerns stressing its uniqueness.
Jarosze- wicz,p. The codifiers of the Montenegrin language accepted his view that Montenegro was an organic whole in linguistic terms. The statement taken from: The Case of Montenegro continually the language policy of unification, which had anti-Montenegrin effects. And its aim is unmasked granatika a following manner: And therefore the developed periodisation of the history of the Montenegrin language coincides precisely with the history of the Montenegrin ter- ritories and refers to gra,atika tradition of mediaeval statehood.