Re: So it is true...


Seán O'Leathlóbhair <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133517371.229965.4140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Paul J Kriha wrote:
>> Seán O'Leathlóbhair <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1133447738.383049.56040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
><snip>
>
>> >Is that only since Czechoslovakia split or was it common before?
>>
>> In the times of the old federal republic the languages were
>> often used interchangeably. For example, half the banknote
>> denominations were printed in Czech and half in Slovak.
>> The radio and TV newscasts were usually given in both
>> languages by two presenters alternating between items.
>
>Were they regarded as different languages rather than merely dialects
>before the split?

They were (always) regarded as separate languages.

For about 1000 years until 1918 the Czech and Slovak speaking
nations were living in more-or-less separately administered
territories. At the beginning they were presumably speaking
the same language. The Slovak language based on the central
Slovak dialect was formalized around 1840. So by then it
was definitely regarded as a separate language.

>I know that there is no good linguistic distinction
>but nonetheless people usually have opinions on the matter. Are the
>differences much greater than UK to US English?

Yes, definitely.

> How does the level of
>difference compare to the Scandinavian languages?

Sorry, I don't know Scandinavian languages that well.

The Czechoslovak people since their childhood were every day
passively exposed to each other's language. They don't often
realize the extent of the foreign vocabulary/syntax/morphology
they actually are familiar with.

I can converse in Czech with Slovaks who speak Slovak in a mixed
group without too many problems, occasionally I have to query
a more unusual word. When I read a Slovak book I don't have the
immediate help from somebody in the group and I find it significantly
more difficult and tiring.

To understand the spoken conversation is only possible because
the languages are similar but also because passively I know
Slovak quite well. We are both familiar with each others' common
words, such as "listen" (CZ "poslys" or "poslouchej" SK "poc^u'vaj"),
if we talk about football, we know that CZ "mi'c^" is the same
thing as SK "lopta".
However, unless I parrot exactly what I heard I am unable to
come up with even a simple correct Slovak sentence.
I cannot write Slovak, I've never learned the Slovak orthography
and the morphology is often a double Dutch to me.
On average the Slovaks are more likely to be truly bilingual,
they are quite likely to have read Czech books, while I have
read hardly any. Those of them who studied at Czech
universities are likely to speak Czech like natives.


>> That resulted in, apart from active knowledge of one language,
>> people having at least good passive knowledge of the other one.
>> This is not the case any more. Czech children growing up since
>> the eighties don't understand Slovak and vice versa.
>
>Are the two languages really that different? I didn't realise. Here
>in the UK, a good bookshop will have several books on Czech. I
>struggle to recall whether I have seen a book on Slovak.
>
>> Re your eau de toilette...
>> Separate inscriptions in both languages even when the words
>> happen to be almost identical are probably de norm these days.
>> If nothing else they are a sign of respect for the other state/nation.
>
>But, as we have seen, the Scandinavians do not seem so concerned about
>this respect.
>
>I deal with IBM a lot and sometimes I am slightly irritated that they
>produce numerous translated versions of material, often distinguishing
>even European and Brazilian Portuguese, yet they never bother with UK
>or any other non-US English. However, if they did then I may be
>offended that they considered me unable to understand a different
>variety of English. So, to be fair, they can't win.

Petty politics?

I have seen products with inscriptions in strange collections of
languages, persumably the languages of countries they were
being exported to. At least that was my guess.
Couple months ago I bought some electronic doohdaah
with inscriptions in Hungarian, Arabic, Chinese, and Serbian
(it may have been Bulgarian). Fair enough, I thought,
but it was exported to New Zealand.
And it didn't bother to say where exactly it was made. :-)


>> >Does anyone speak Serbo-Croatian any more?
>>
>> A few university professors of Slavic studies around the world? :-)
>
>Within the former Yugoslavia, has pretty much everyone taken a side?

You cannot deal with THAT problem without taking a side.


>Are there no unionists left?

You mean people who talk about Great Serbia or Great Croatia?

pjk

>> pjk
>> >Or do we have only separate
>> >Serbian and Croatian speakers?
>> >Seán O'Leathlóbhair
>Seán O'Leathlóbhair


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So it is true...
    ... >Is that only since Czechoslovakia split or was it common before? ... In the times of the old federal republic the languages were ... denominations were printed in Czech and half in Slovak. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: So it is true...
    ... languages of the area considerably. ... >>> denominations were printed in Czech and half in Slovak. ... >>differences much greater than UK to US English? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: So it is true...
    ... languages of the area considerably. ... >>> denominations were printed in Czech and half in Slovak. ... useful to know that in English the language is called "Slovak". ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Are their any bi-lingual novels?
    ... Slovak and Czech ... that hardly qualifies as different languages). ... file .signature infected by signature virus. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: So it is true...
    ... >> How does the level of difference compare to the Scandinavian ... I don't know Scandinavian languages that well. ... I think it might compare to the difference between Swedish and Danish, ... or possibly between Swedish and Norwegian (since Czech and Slovak ...
    (sci.lang)