Serbian language and Vuk Stefanović Karadžić

[Petrucci]

This is why I think what Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic did is not that useful, nor is it going to last beyond another 100 years max. After which the spelling of the Serbian language would have to be modified again, if the people 100 years from now on would consider the rule "write as you speak and speak as you write" is of any value.

Why would people change this module when it's the most easy way to use one language?

[Dromikaites]

Because in 100 years the words would sound differently than they sound now.

So the Serbs from 2114 would have to decide if they change the spelling (which may make the books published today harder to read) or if they abandon the "write as you speak" rule.

[Petrucci]

How could possibly words sound differently when orthography of Serbian match the spoken language? There are no spelling in Serbian. Even if we do create new voices, which is unlikely and unnecessary , we can simply add new letter representing that voice. So Dromikaites your theory fails. I'm not sure if you understood my OP at all.

[The Despondent Mind]

I also don't understand what is he saying. I have never in my entire life heard a serb talking how to spell something. You simply hear the word and write it down. Why would people in future start writing different letters for different voices and make a mess for no reason. Besides US English from it's earliest sound recordings sounds exactly the same today. There something called POP CULTURE, it has an immense influence. You just can't make all the previous movies, books and songs that were popular during this era make go away. If you grow up with these influences why would people make sudden changes to the sound of their language or spelling?

[Aru]

In Croatian you say "moraću" but always write "morat ću".
In Serbian you write "moraću" because you say moraću.

English equivalent is "don't" and "do not". By Croatian rule you'd write "do not" even if you say "don't". This shortening is rare in our language, so it's not a big bother, just makes you seem illiterate if you write incorrectly (which many do, comparable English misspelling is a confusion most seem to have with there, their and they're).

And there you go, the only change that this Vuk's rule makes over it's closest other standard language which clings persistently to archaic and strict rules on everything.

[Impresario]

[QUOTE=Aru;13810335
In Serbian you write "moraću" because you say moraću.[/QUOTE]

that is correct, and with that rule serbian language appears to be "easy" or whatever you want to call it. maybe not easy but more simpler and straightforward, and its probably
easy to learn to others.

[Manco]

How could possibly words sound differently when orthography of Serbian match the spoken language? There are no spelling in Serbian. Even if we do create new voices, which is unlikely and unnecessary , we can simply add new letter representing that voice. So Dromikaites your theory fails. I'm not sure if you understood my OP at all.

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding.

Pronunciation changes, that is a simple fact of life. Whether it's because a different dialect becomes dominant, through influence of other languages, shortening of a word in daily parlance,...
So after a 100 years, you either change the orthography to reflect the newer pronunciation, or you'll have words that are written different than they are pronounced as in most languages.

The idea that Serbian would be exempt from this, unlike literally every other language using a phonemic(?) alphabet, is rather suspect. Sure you could force people to keep speaking the same way as well as writing, but that's hardly feasible.

[NikeBG]

Basically, pronounciations change with time (f.e. the differences between the medieval and modern forms of a language) and place (i.e. regional dialects). Thus, from time to time, the spelling has to be updated to fit the new pronounciation of the words. For example, in Bulgarian the standard word for "what" is "kakvo", but more and more people are shortening it to "kvo". Thus, after time, when "kvo" has became the dominant form of the word, we'd either have to "update" our spelling of the word (i.e. make "kvo" the official form) or we'd have to pronounce "kvo", but write the by-then archaic "kakvo". Basically, you'd either have to update the spellings of the word to the new pronounciation (the way we've done in BG and you've done in SRB) or keep the old spellings, despite the growing differences with the new pronounciations (the way it is in most Western languages).

P.S. I don't see what's the problem with our щ, ю and я - just because those signs denote two combined sounds (respectively ш+т, й+у and й+а; note: not и+у/а, i.e. not with a long i, but with a short one) doesn't mean they're useless or confusing. If anything, the short "I"s (й and ь) should be reformed, since they can't be pronounced by themselves and choosing between one of the two which to write depends only on the surrounding letters (й after a vowel or ь after a consonant).

Edit: Ninjad; what Manco said.

[Petrucci]

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding.

Pronunciation changes, that is a simple fact of life. Whether it's because a different dialect becomes dominant, through influence of other languages, shortening of a word in daily parlance,...
So after a 100 years, you either change the orthography to reflect the newer pronunciation, or you'll have words that are written different than they are pronounced as in most languages.

The idea that Serbian would be exempt from this, unlike literally every other language using a phonemic(?) alphabet, is rather suspect. Sure you could force people to keep speaking the same way as well as writing, but that's hardly feasible.

I'm not so sure I am the one who got it wrong.
Words might change but whole language and the basic rules remain same. And pronunciation change; if people pronounce words different, this will reflect on the way they write summing no real difference. You will still be able to read 200 years old texts without problems.
Please indicate if I' missing something.

Basically, pronunciations change with time (f.e. the differences between the medieval and modern forms of a language) and place (i.e. regional dialects). Thus, from time to time, the spelling has to be updated to fit the new pronounciation of the words. For example, in Bulgarian the standard word for "what" is "kakvo", but more and more people are shortening it to "kvo". Thus, after time, when "kvo" has became the dominant form of the word, we'd either have to "update" our spelling of the word (i.e. make "kvo" the official form) or we'd have to pronounce "kvo", but write the by-then archaic "kakvo". Basically, you'd either have to update the spellings of the word to the new pronounciation (the way we've done in BG and you've done in SRB) or keep the old spellings, despite the growing differences with the new pronounciations (the way it is in most Western languages).


Edit: Ninjad; what Manco said.

This is quite obvious words evolve over time. If spoken language match written one I can't see real difference.

[Manco]

How would you be able toi fluently read words that haven't been used in 200 years or that were written entirely differently? You might be able to pronounce everything that's written, understand it is something else.

[Petrucci]

I do not need to understand what's written in order to fluently read it. A is A T is T and that's all you need to know. What do you mean by saying

that were written entirely differently?

How different could they be written? I still fail to see your point.

[Dromikaites]

P.S. I don't see what's the problem with our щ, ю and я - just because those signs denote two combined sounds (respectively ш+т, й+у and й+а; note: not и+у/а, i.e. not with a long i, but with a short one) doesn't mean they're useless or confusing.

Of course there's no problem.

My point was precisely that: nobody suffers if instead of writing two letters on occasions a single letter is used to account for a group of two sounds.

The only ones who are bothered are people like Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, who would like every sound to be represented by a distinct letter.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I do not need to understand what's written in order to fluently read it. A is A T is T and that's all you need to know. What do you mean by saying
How different could they be written? I still fail to see your point.

What's the point of reading but not understanding?

[Dromikaites]

Petrucci, here is an example to help you understand why "write as you speak and speak as you write" is of little practical value.

Go to any website in the Mongolian language. Since the Mongolian language uses Cyrillics, you would probably be able to read it (OK, there are some special letters not existing in Serbian, but you are a google away from learning how to pronounce those letters).

So you will be able to read Mongolian out loud in no time. But can you also understand the text?

NikeBG gave you an example with the evolution of "kakvo" (=what), which became in everyday Bulgarian speech "kvo". In another 100 years it might evolve into "ko" (similar to the Polish "co"). So in 200 from years the Bulgarians reading "kakvo" in a text printed in 2014 might not know it meant "ko".

In any language changing all the time the writing in order to match the evolution of speaking will result in losing the "backward compatibility". "Freezing" the spelling coupled with public education seems to slow down a bit the evolution of the speech, preserving the readability of printed text for longer periods of time (as in 400 years).

[Kyriakos]

Different letters (or double letters) for the 'same' (which may originally not have been the same) sound, as in Greek letters for "e" (and to a very smaller degree "o"), are not useless at all. They link to the etymology of the terms. I am of the view that "modernising" (which in effect means simplifying) the language always leads to an erosion of the etymology. People in the past could read/write it, so why assume the future generations are stupid and won't be able to? In fact you turn them to idiots if you provide them a maimed language meant for idiots.

[Impresario]

Petrucci, here is an example to help you understand why "write as you speak and speak as you write"

It is actually "write as you speak and read as it is written"! and it is timeless formula and there is no problem with it, sometimes changes to the
language are not necessary.

[Dromikaites]

It is actually "write as you speak and read as it is written"! and it is timeless formula and there is no problem with it, sometimes changes to the
language are not necessary.

It can backfire like in the example provided by NikeBG for the Bulgarian word "kakvo" (what).

100 years ago people wrote "kakvo" and pronounced "kakvo". Today they keep writing "kakvo" but most of them say "kvo". In 2014 they might say "ko" (the word in Polish, another Slavic language, is "co", so evolving towards a two-letters form is plausible).

So if they adopt this rule you say it's timeless then most of the Bulgarians living in 2114 won't be able to read the texts of today. At least not easily.

By contrast, the English speakers can still read stuff from 1600s because they stuck with the old spelling.

[Aru]

By contrast, the English speakers can still read stuff from 1600s because they stuck with the old spelling.

Yes, I'm just reading Croatian epic poem from 1613 and it's somewhat hard because letters like č, š and ž are written cc, x and ss. Shakespeare is much easier to read.


But kvo and kakvo are not an issue of spelling, but of word form. Serbian has the same issue. Most people say ko instead of kao (conjunction like, not verb to like). It must still be written kao because that is the correct Serbian word for like. Ko can be slang or dialect, but is not standard Serbian. If the authority on Serbian language decides that Ko is the proper form, then it will be spelled ko. I was wrong earlier, Croatian and Serbian difference in spelling isn't actually in spelling but in form. Spelling is exactly the same, we just use different forms.

What Vuk meant is in context of each sound having one letter. Nothing else. It was especially important in his time because Serbian Cyrillic was excessively archaic and complicated. So he eliminated archaic letters from the alphabet, and added new ones to correspond to that rule. And how unique that idea is? He got it from Czech, just like Croatian linguists who did the same thing with Croatian latin alphabet (and actually adopted Czech letters).

[Petrucci]

Yes, I'm just reading Croatian epic poem from 1613 and it's somewhat hard because letters like č, š and ž are written cc, x and ss. Shakespeare is much easier to read.


But kvo and kakvo are not an issue of spelling, but of word form. Serbian has the same issue. Most people say ko instead of kao (conjunction like, not verb to like). It must still be written kao because that is the correct Serbian word for like. Ko can be slang or dialect, but is not standard Serbian. If the authority on Serbian language decides that Ko is the proper form, then it will be spelled ko. I was wrong earlier, Croatian and Serbian difference in spelling isn't actually in spelling but in form. Spelling is exactly the same, we just use different forms.

What Vuk meant is in context of each sound having one letter. Nothing else. It was especially important in his time because Serbian Cyrillic was excessively archaic and complicated. So he eliminated archaic letters from the alphabet, and added new ones to correspond to that rule. And how unique that idea is? He got it from Czech, just like Croatian linguists who did the same thing with Croatian latin alphabet (and actually adopted Czech letters).

This is what I meant whole time. Now we can finally go back to the original question, why nobody before Vuk enlist this rule, letter for a sound.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reminds me of Richard III - kingdom for the horse

[Aru]

This is what I meant whole time. Now we can finally go back to the original question, why nobody before Vuk enlist this rule, letter for a sound.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reminds me of Richard III - kingdom for the horse

As I said, Czechs did, the Latin script of Jan Hus more precisely, 400 years befor us. Only digraph left was ch for long h, and like our lj and nj it's considered single letter. Actually Czech is even more phonetic becuase i and í represent sounds of different lengths, while we use single letter. We use same i for tik and bik, while they're actually different sounds.