Talk:CSDS

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

The final statement on this page, that the CSDS was the last bastion of communism other than Bavaria, might need to be changed. Nea Illenicia is communist/socialist, and it won't be changing any time soon.

Ferko: looks good to me. Including that last statement. Nothing against Nea Illenicia, but I'm sure it can't be considered a 'major bastion' of communism? ;)

---

Contents

Proposal?

Why is there that "proposal" comment at the bottom of the page? AFAIK, CSDS was mine when I wrote all this...? Talk

No idea, but as far as I can see, it was there already when we imported everything from Joe's old wiki. If you agree with everything written in the article, I'd say remove it. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 09:54, 14 August 2007 (PDT)

Flag

Could someone please adjust this, so the flag shows up as it should? I can't figure it out.

Sanjakoserbian?

First time I hear about a distinction between "Serbosanjaki" and "Sanjakoserbian". Could you explain that please? --IJzeren Jan 23:28, 1 December 2005 (PST)

Sure, though I've mentioned it before, notably on FOIB. In Sanjak *here*, they speak something pretty similar to Bosnian - ijekavski/štokavski, with lots of Turkish and Arabic-via-Turkish loanwords. Since IB Croatian is so different from Serbian, the designation Serbocroatian/Croatoserbian as was used here (ekavski/štokavski {SC}; ijekavski/štokavski {standard CS}) would be as meaningful as, say, Hispanoitalian/Italohispanic. Thus, the designations Serbosanjaki and Sanjakoserbian were devised with the establishment of the artificial Sanjaki Soviet Republic; this designation stuck around until the collapse of the CSDS. Since then, they are simply referred to as Serbian and Sanjaki in common usage, amongst linguists as Serbian Yugoslav (srpskojugoslovenski) and Sanjaki Yugoslav (sandz^ac^kojugoslovenski) - Yugoslav meaning Southslavic, and purely a term used among?t linguists having no political implications at all, unlike Serbosanjaki and Sanjakoserbian. Collectively, Serbian and Sanjaki are called Yugoslav/Southslav.
I'm against it. I think that it would be better if Sanjaki was just a neologism, in CSDS it was called Serbian as well. When Sanjak gained independence, it asked for its own language, different from Serbian. From strictly linguistic point of view, Sanjaki is not a different language, but it is considered so because of the politics... Croatian is also quite similar to Serbian and some nationalist Serbian linguist consider it a dialect of Serbian. --George D. Bozovic (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2006 (PDT)
I was thinking of this, along the lines of 'srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski' *here*. Though, you do have a point... BiH was an artificial construct of the SFRJ *here* as Sanjak was an artificial construct of the CSDS... so yes, you are probably right. I agree: in CSDS times, it was simply 'Serbian'. talk

Insignias

Do you want to de-propositionalise the insignias or would prefer to go with something different ? --Marc Pasquin 06:06, 2 December 2005 (PST)

I love them! :)
Cheers, one less proposal on the uniform page then.--Marc Pasquin 06:13, 2 December 2005 (PST)

History

It says in the history that only Bavaria and Nea Illencia are the only communist countries left. What about Chukotka and Alayska? --Sikulu 03:29, 2 February 2006 (PST)

I think this was written before this information was "discovered" I think that also, since they're both nominally socialist, they may not count(?). BoArthur
Isn't Chukotka Trotskyist though? And I thought that it was Bavaria that was more socialist than Communist. --Sikulu 09:02, 2 February 2006 (PST)

Lambion (about the languages)

First time I hear about a distinction between "Serbosanjaki" and "Sanjakoserbian". Could you explain that please? --IJzeren Jan 23:28, 1 December 2005 (PST)

Sure, though I've mentioned it before, notably on FOIB. In Sanjak *here*, they speak something pretty similar to Bosnian - ijekavski/štokavski, with lots of Turkish and Arabic-via-Turkish loanwords. Since IB Croatian is so different from Serbian, the designation Serbocroatian/Croatoserbian as was used here (ekavski/štokavski {SC}; ijekavski/štokavski {standard CS}) would be as meaningful as, say, Hispanoitalian/Italohispanic. Thus, the designations Serbosanjaki and Sanjakoserbian were devised with the establishment of the artificial Sanjaki Soviet Republic; this designation stuck around until the collapse of the CSDS. Since then, they are simply referred to as Serbian and Sanjaki in common usage, amongst linguists as Serbian Yugoslav (srpskojugoslovenski) and Sanjaki Yugoslav (sandz^ac^kojugoslovenski) - Yugoslav meaning Southslavic, and purely a term used among?t linguists having no political implications at all, unlike Serbosanjaki and Sanjakoserbian. Collectively, Serbian and Sanjaki are called Yugoslav/Southslav.
I'm against it. I think that it would be better if Sanjaki was just a neologism, in CSDS it was called Serbian as well. When Sanjak gained independence, it asked for its own language, different from Serbian. From strictly linguistic point of view, Sanjaki is not a different language, but it is considered so because of the politics... Croatian is also quite similar to Serbian and some nationalist Serbian linguist consider it a dialect of Serbian. --George D. Bozovic (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2006 (PDT)
Sorry, after looking at Croatian I changed my mind. Croatian is not similar to Serbian *there* and only very extreme nationalists would consider it a dialect of Serbian. --George D. Bozovic (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2006 (PDT)
Well, the idea behind this Serbosanjaki was that after Sanjak was created as a full member state of the CSDS, to acknowledge the different culture and different mannerisms in speech (namely, all the loanwords from Turkish and Arabic - Sanjaki is pretty much Bosnian *here*, perhaps with heavier Turkish influence), they decided to call it this, instead of saying there's separate Serbian and Sanjaki languages... which do diverge. As an example I'd take the sevdalinka 'Put putuje Latif-aga' from *here*: Put putuje Latif-aga / Sa jaranom Sulejmanom / "Moj jarane Sulejmane / je l'ti zao Banja Luke / banjaluckih teferica / kraj Vrbasa aksamluka / kul-mahale Djumisica / i jalije Tetarica / l'jepe Fate Maglajlica?" (Apropos, I'm thinking perhaps a variation of this - or perhaps as it is - might be the national anthem of Sanjak?)

Now, I don't know about a native speaker of _Serbian_ (let's say, take someone from Bela Crkva, an average person, not a linguist or anthropologist or anyone - just your average worker type) - would they understand this? As useful as my knowledge of Serbian is (I can read newspapers, etc, and understand what's being said), I have no idea what teferica, aksamluka, kul-mahale etc mean. Given the extensive use of Turkish and Arabic loanwords in common speech, there would be some amount of impediment to mutual comprehension between the two dialects, though at a careful, educated level of speech, comprehension would be 100%.

Dalmatinac

Speaking of *here*: Somebody from Bela Crkva would probably not understand this (it was part of Austria-Hungary, wasn't it?), but let's take somebody from some town that was part of the Ottoman Empire. There are many loans from Turkish in non-Vojvodina Serbian dialects. --George D. Bozovic (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2006 (PDT)
Speaking of *there*: Perhaps the language of Serbia could have been called Serbian, and the language of Sanjak could have been called Serbosanjaki or Sanjakoserbian, admitting that some differences from Serbia's Serbian exist, but still not claiming its linguistical independence from Serbian language? --George D. Bozovic (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2006 (PDT)
Speaking generally: You cannot compare Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian from *here* with Serbo-Sanjaki and Sanjako-Serbian from *there*. Serbian and Croatian are pretty much the same languages *here* and have common development since the 19th century, but Serbian and Sanjaki are just not like that. Sanjaki is in deed like Bosnian *here*, but Bosnian was never claimed in SFRY, it's quite a newer nonsense, it's from 1990s. Being a linguist myself, I just can't accept such a Serbo-Sanjaki/Sanjako-Serbian concept. However, I do believe that CSDS must have been admitted some kind of independence to the language of the Sanjaki Muslims, perhaps Sanjakoserbian variant/subdialect/socialist_autonomous_dialect ;) of Serbian. --George D. Bozovic (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2006 (PDT)
Well. Of course it is not an independent language. An Armenian won't understand the Armenian Gypsy dialect - but that's still considered Armenian. (I'm considering going to grad school and doing my masters - in linguistics ;) But my area of interest is Finno-Ugristics, specifically Votian).
For my own part, I don't consider Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian as separate languages (if I did, I would also say Hercegovacki, Crnski and Gorski are all separate, too ;) ). Nor is Serbian and Sanjaki - linguistically. All of this is a political matter. I'm certain that what happened to me in Zagreb could very easily happen *there* in Novi Pazar: ask for 'mleko' at the milk shop, and they say they don't have any of that. Sanjaki is, linguistically, simply a dialect of Serbian (or, *there*, it could be called Jugoslovenski as a common, politically-neutral thing, given there was never any sort of "Yugoslavia" *there*). The naming of them as separate languages is purely political. In CSDS times... you're right, though; I'd say they recognised the distinctiveness of the dialect, and called it something like Sandzacki Srpski or something. Dalmatinac
PS: Yes, Bela Crkva was part of Hungary before Trianon. My great-grandmother was born there. :)

National Anthem:

Does the CSDS use the Internationale as the national anthem?

Here's the Serbian version *here*. I hope this works *there*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzLhBDnyv2E

--Chinofilipino 16:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools
discussion