Pravopis Matice srpske - repo. MS_pdf · ПРАВОПИС СРПСКОГА ЈЕ3Иiq\ МИТАР ПЕШИКАН ЈОВАН ЈЕРКОВИЋ МАТО. Pravopis srpskoga jezika / priredili Mitar Pešikan, Jovan Jerković, Mato Pižurica Pešikan, Mitar. View online Novi Sad: Matica srpska ; Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, pages, , Serbian, Book; Illustrated, None. () Poezija Dubrovnika i Boke Kotorske. (Antologijska edicija Deset vekova srpske književnosti, Vol. ). Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Boranić, Dragutin () Pravopis hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. strategy for multilingualism'. http://eur phisrebiberkotch.gq?uri=COMFIN:EN:PDF.
|Language:||English, German, Hindi|
|ePub File Size:||29.53 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.33 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Similarly to the concept of the “Letopis Matice srpske” Chronicle, the oldest . Professor Jasmina Grković Mejdžor, PhD () . of the Serbian Language [ Pravopis srpskoga jezika] by M. Pešikan, J. Jerković and M. if necessary, in PDF to the email addresses: [email protected] or [email protected] com. More From Tyler Bradley. OD PRVAKA DO phisrebiberkotch.gq Uploaded by. Tyler Bradley. Precision. Uploaded by. Tyler Bradley. pcelica 4 phisrebiberkotch.gq Uploaded. JEZIKA (any issue). Novi Sad, Matica srpska; ili: Mitar Pešikan, Jovan Jerković, Mato. Pižurica, Milorad Dešić PRAVOPIS SRPSKOGA JEZIKA, Novi Sad.
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 Fichte , which 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.
Less than one and a 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: Hobsbawm , p.
The study was conducted at author's own expense. No competing interests have been declared. 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 themselves out of the unified Serbocroat which their forefathers con- structed to unify the southern Slavs — not with much success — then anybody can". Hobsbawm, , p.
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: who Montenegrins are? Or are they simply Serbs of regional specificity? Or perhaps are they 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 these 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 various stages of the evolution of the Montenegrin identity we observed a strong sense of tribal membership of Monte- negrins, their primary religious identification conditioned by the affiliation to the Orthodox 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 what role the language played in the process of reconstruction and reinterpretation of the Montenegrin national identity.
6 editions of this work
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 about this in: Melnytska , pp.
The agreement pro- vided two variants of the common language: Western Croatian and Eastern Serbian , and at the same time the statuses of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets were recognised as equal, 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 Montenegrins , this 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.
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.
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.
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, CANU , or 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. Fishman, : Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian.
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.
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.
( dz, lj, ) > (, , , , z).
The scope of these dialects goes beyond the borders of Montenegro. Vojislav P. 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 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.
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. More about this see: Jaroszewicz , pp. 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 of , concluded 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 Karabeg et al.
Another theme in the narrative on the Montenegrin language concerns stressing its uniqueness. The codifiers of the Montenegrin language accepted his view that Montenegro was an organic whole in linguistic terms. The statement taken from: Zalewski , p. 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 the tradition of mediaeval statehood.
However, the identity of the Montenegrin language still arouses controversy among linguists. The authors also analyse the Croatian discourse. The author of this concept was Vojislav P.
Apart from the linguistic dimension of the debates on the distinctness of the Montenegrin language, which came to a standstill as a result of uncompromising attitudes of the polemicis- ing parties, it should be stressed that this dispute from the very beginning has been a part of the current disputes of political-identity nature: between Serbia and Montenegro on the axis of Belgrade — Podgorica, between Serbia and Montenegro at the intra-Montenegrin level, and, finally, between Montenegrins themselves.
Thus the language started to play an important role in creating political divisions. Another question which is brought quite often is an issue of replacing Cyrillic with Latin.
Like the Montenegrin definition of a national identity, also the Montenegrin defini- tion of a language is difficult to accept for the part of the Montenegrin society. The Serbian Orthodox Church with its leading Montenegrin metropolitan bishop Amfilohije, one of the key figures of the Montenegrin public life, many times has taken the floor as regards the issues of the language and identity.
When preparing the manuscript the author should take care of the following: a titles of separate publications collected works, novels, dramas, collections or cycles of poetry and short stories, monographs, collections of papers, journals, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, etc. Paris: Fayard, Oakland, Calif.
Praha: Academia, —. Procedure and rules for manuscript review 1. All papers sent to the journal are reviewed.
Reviewers are renowned experts from the country and abroad for the scientific field and topic of the paper which has been sent to the journal. The papers that do not fall within the scope of the journal or do not correspond to the scientific criteria of the journal are not reviewed. In that case the author is given a negative response. Reviewing is double blind: the authors do not know who the reviewers are and the reviewers do not know who the authors of the paper are.
The reviewers are familiar to the fact that the manuscripts sent to them for review are the intellectual property of the author and that they cannot use them or make them public. The review should provide an objective assessment of the paper and should analyze its good and bad sides. The review should be done within 60 days after the paper was sent to the journal. The authors whose papers are rejected are also sent an explanation.
Validating the arguments and evidence 1. Editor in Chief will, in agreement with the Editorial Board, initiate the process aimed at validating the arguments and evidence. During this process all presented evidence shall be considered as confidential material and will be presented only to persons who are directly involved in the process.
Persons who are suspected to have violated ethical standards will be given an opportunity to respond to allegations made against them. If it is found that there, indeed, were any irregularities, it will be assessed whether they should be characterized as a minor violation or as a gross violation of ethical standards.
Minor violation Situations characterized as a minor violation shall be settled in direct communication with persons who have committed it without the involvement of third parties: 1. Gross violation of ethical standards Decisions regarding gross violation of ethical standards are made by the Editor in Chief in cooperation with the Editorial Board and, if necessary, a small group of experts. Measures to be taken can be the following: 1.The agreement pro- vided two variants of the common language: Western Croatian and Eastern Serbian , and at the same time the statuses of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets were recognised as equal, as well as two pronunciations — ijekavian and ekavian.
The paper also describes how the Montenegrin language is being narratized so that the language narrative is being produced as a part of the broader narrative about the Montenegrin identity.
Povodom standardizacije crnogorskog jezika. Matica, 1 , 7— The authors also analyse the Croatian discourse. Melnytska, K. 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. 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.