by Kim CUCULIC
After on February 17, Dragan Primorac, Minister for Science, Education and Sport, officially recommended the "Croatian School Grammar" for use in primary and high schools, Dr. Sanda Ham, professor at the Philosophy Department of the Osijek University, discussed the concept of the new grammar handbook. According to Dr. Ham, the textbook she co-authored is a well written grammar based on the approach established by Croatian linguist Broz. Although "Croatian grammar", by Babic, Finka, and Mogus has been used in schools for more than ten years and has been updated with every new edition, a need has arisen for a short, simple handbook that will be at the level suitable for pupils from the 5th grade to the 4th high-school grade. Although based on the norm established in Babic-Finka-Mogus grammar, the hew textbook is shorter, simpler and more suitable for use in schools.
In comparison with "Croatian grammar" from 1994, which is currently used in schools, "Croatian school grammar" abolishes many double spellings, for example, in spelling of t and d in front of c (podatci/podaci, napitci/napici) and the possibility to write neću/ne ću both together and separately. Furthermore, verbs drhtati and dahtati previously also had dual spelling, as drhćem/dršćem and dahćem/dašćem, while the group -stn was allowed in some words originating from other languages, such as azbestni/azbesni.
The strongest reaction was provoked by forms pogrješka and strjelica, which were dominant in Croatian grammatical practice until 1960, when the so-called Novi Sad grammar was published, introducing forms pogreška, napici, neću, and strelica. The later editions of the "Croatian grammar" also avoid double spellings, which were replaced by Croatian forms. Thus, in the preface of the fifth modified edition published in 2000 Stjepan Babic and Milan Mogus explain that -tc and -dc differs more [razlikovnije] from the standard use in Serbia [and is therefore "more Croatian"], while the use of -je behind covered [pokriveno] "r" is closer to the system of standard literary Croatian and its pronunciation. Substitution of the spelling neću by ne ću was justified as the extension of the Croatian tradition interrupted in 1960.
State secretary for high school education Zelimir Janjic also appeared in the show. He emphasized that Minister Primorac only gave a recommendation, which is not the same as a definite decision. According to Janjic Croatia does not need either leftist or rightist but actually a Croatian grammar. Consensus of Croatian linguist is especially important because language is an important characteristic of Croatia in connection with its entry into the European Union.
Thus, it seems that Croats, despite all those grammars, are actually illiterate, while persistent changes in spelling and grammatical rules confuse the most those who are learning to write. Consequently, the majority of experts agree that it would be ideal if schools were to use only one textbook on grammar. Only practice will show whether the new "Croat school grammar" will sow even more confusion. Finally, in all of this we should not forget that every new textbook is also a chance for new revenue and profits.
The current Croatian spelling is in its nature phonological-morphonological. Phonological spelling always uses the same letter to mark a certain phoneme (sound), regardless of the meaning of the word. For example: rob, ropski, potkresati, stambeni, kazališni.
On the other hand, spelling that focuses on morphemes (smallest unit of a language that has a meaning), so that the same morpheme is always spelled with the same letters is called morphological. Thus, the abovementioned examples would be spelled as: rob, robski, podkresati, stanbeni, kazalištni.
Given that the currently prevailing spelling in Croatia is phonological-morphonological, within a single word we mostly use phonological spelling, while links between words affected by phonetic changes are spelled morphonologically. Thus, we write: kod kuće, s bratom and govorit ću, but actually say kotkuće, zbratom and govoriću.
"Matica has concluded that all of these discussions regarding the grammar are really fueled by politics, so that some authors see themselves as patriots, while Josip Silic, a civilized Croat and a gentleman has been criticized for his alleged lack of Croatian national consciousness. In such a situation Matica Hrvatska has decided to recruit three young experts, untainted by politics, who will not succumb to the aforementioned divisions while working on the grammar.
"I personally believe that even now we have two good grammars, but the problem is that people base their reaction to these textbook depending on the image of the authors, so that one of them is a priori rejected, depending on their political views. Consequently, I believe that the best solution would be to publish grammar and spelling textbooks under the auspices of institutions dealing with language and that they be authored by teams of experts, while the identity of these experts would not be emphasized. I believe that in that manner we would be able to reduce tensions regarding grammar textbooks.
"The current ‘war of grammar' seems pointless to me as the difference between the two grammars is essentially in three and a half rules. Given that the situation with grammar and spelling textbooks is currently extremely politicized, it seems to me that Matica's new textbook could solve that problem."
"Given that the Textbooks Act from 2001 does not foresee the mechanism of approval for handbooks, but reserves it only for textbooks, minister's recommendation is above all illegal. The problem is that the procedure chosen by the minister in this case undermines competitiveness. The fact that other publishers were not invited to offer their versions of the textbook is against all democratic principles.
"I do not know whether Minister Primorac decided to offer his recommendation due to ignorance or due to somebody's pressure, but after announcing his decision he made an additional clarification stating that ‘Croatian school grammar' is not mandatory for instruction in schools. Therefore it's only a temporary solution.
"According to information at my disposal, a now Textbooks Act should be adopted the coming fall and it will specify a democratic procedure as far as grammar and spelling handbooks are concerned. I hope that this is not a final solution as any legal constraint would imply lack of freedom and return to NDH [Independent State of Croatia, WWII Nazi puppet state] and fascism.
"Some linguists claim that the grammar by Babic, Ham and Mogus is a return to the thousand-years-long Croatian grammatical tradition. Well, what about the grammar and spelling we've used during the last fifty years? Isn't that also a part of tradition? More books have been published during the last sixty years than during the preceding 950! What are we going to do with writers such as Ranko Marinkovic, Vladan Desnica or Antun Soljan?"
"But language is ‘tricky business'. Language is like an eel. It cannot be caught. It slides from the grasp of history and tradition whenever it feels like it and returns to its old riverbed when it suits it. Every language possess its own history but, as is true for all aspects of human culture, every new generation brings changes in transmission of language from one generation to another. Language changes in all its aspects - its pronunciation, form of words, syntax, and even meanings of certain terms end up being modified. Therefore, in order to remain healthy and free, language must change.
"Language implies logic as well. Language is spirit and humor. Language is an exercise for spirit. Therefore, recent stuffy seriousness and enmity with which Natasa Basic reacted on February 21, 2005 on TV show ‘Otvoreno' to absolutely logical, smart and funny comment by Zoran Sprajac regarding the possible change of the name Hloverka to Hlovjerka [name of the host of the show ‘Otvoreno'] is simply unintelligible. Language belongs to all those who use it; it cannot, nor will it ever be prescribed by decrees; sooner or later language will find, or push its way towards freedom; it will escape the firm hand of ossified tradition - no matter whether it is black or red. It will slip away.
"As far as ‘neću' is concerned - ‘neću' is a negation of the verb to want, ‘htjeti'. Consequently, [following the morphological tradition,] we could spell it as ‘ne hotijem', ‘ne hotiješ', ‘ne hotije'. Also, we could spell ‘nemam' [do not have] as ‘ne mam' or ‘ne imam'. All of it sounds kind of old, very, very ancient. Writing with quills is also a tradition. Cooking on a hearth as well...
"I shall not write ‘ne ću', but I may decide to write ‘napitci' instead of ‘napici' to make sure my readers do not misunderstand me. I shall write ‘dahšćem' because I like the way sound ‘h' sounds in that word. I'll take from the grammar, regardless of which one is in force, whatever seems logical to me and whatever is appropriate for what I'm trying to say. I'll make up new words if the language I use lacks them and I will insert words from all sorts of languages if they ‘fit' my story."
"Essentially, all of that is barren and pretentious bickering, the only purpose of which is to figure out which publisher will get to publish the textbook and sell it to schools. Just as the whole war was against Serbs and then became a fight for money in our pockets, this war regarding the grammar and spelling is another war for our money.
"We need a grammar and spelling handbook that will be very clear, as currently we are in the situation that all of us are universally illiterate - from kids at school to doctors of sciences. Such a handbook should be written by experts who will not be burdened by history and politics but will focus on the language instead."
"Essentially, whether someone writes ‘pogrješka' or not is not that important. Unlike the authors of ‘Croatian grammar', which is actually a handbook, Anic and Silic offered scientific approach to grammar and spelling. The debate that has developed only shows that every forced change of grammar and spelling, regardless of tradition and accuracy, will polarize editors, journalists and all those who write. That would not be that good. We must keep in mind that it cannot be predicted how a language will evolve. For example, since the nineties, many words we initially found repulsive have entered daily usage thanks to heavy use in the media."
"As far as linguists are concerned, their job should be to make sure people can read and write, not the opposite."
by Zdravko ZIMA
It is well known that in new Croatia freedom has been taken to mean the freedom of corruption, so that its supporters have covered all spheres of (the so-called) public and (the so-called) cultural life. There is no doubt that in all of them someone has made a tidy profit, but there is also no doubt that in the whole business those for whom the textbook was generously prepared for, students, will fare the worst.
The way authors of the textbook managed to force it on schools and indirectly all of us makes them resemble very closely their role models from the parliament benches. Theirs is the politics of fait accompli: it defends interests of small interest groups; it cheats the public, ignores time and tries to pretend that Croat language and grammar haven't changed since the age of Adolf Veber Tkalcevic and Vuk Karadzic. One of the paradoxes is that it is difficult to avoid the impression that so far no one has managed to humiliate our language as much as hard working linguists in newly independent Croatia. The new country implied new borders, new insignia, and even a newspeak, as envisaged by Orwell. We got a "zrakomlat" ["air-beater" - helicopter, before "helikopter"], "sveza" [link, connection, earlier "veza"], "rukovoditelj" [manager, earlier "menadžer" or "rukovodilac"] and so on. No one even dares mention "januar" (only "siječanj" is allowed), and "hiljada" [thousand, now "tisuća"] has definitely ended up in the waste bin, as if it were infectious. Why in the world are we now not allowed to use the suffix "lac"? Why would not someone say "čitalac", or "čitač", instead of only "čitatelj" [reader]?
But, the argumentation offered by Babic and comp. is only seemingly sound. To insist in the time of globalization, gene therapy, Internet, cyberspace, cyber-surfers, in the time of global terrorism, feminism, vegetarianism, and what not, on problems stemming from Old Slavonic sound "yat" (and differences between ekavian, ijekavian and ikavian dialects), is nothing else but an anachronism.
Croats are way behind developed European countries in use of computers and knowledge of foreign languages, while local linguists seem bent on cementing their weak knowledge of their mother tongue and its spelling. Instead of preparing their compatriots and fellow citizens for challenges of the third millennium, they are fortifying them for a war with DJuro Danicic and Jovan Skerlic [Serb linguists from the 19th century]! All of that is so well known, worn out and has been discussed so many times in the past that in the best case it can only provoke nausea. These days the world changes in 365 days more than it used to change in a century. But, what do Croat linguists care about that: they have earned their professional standing and their academic titles on Old Slavonic "yat", on Old Slavonic alphabet and distinction between Slavic languages (although they claim that Croats are not Slavs and actually come from Iran), on "strelica" and "strjelica", by loosing distinction between permanent struggle for changes and permanent struggle for betterment of their careers.
Since we are so focused on tradition, we could appeal to Vlasta Pavic, mayor of Zagreb, to return horse drawn carriages to the capital. And, as far as the past is concerned, perhaps we should strive to dress as during the glorious Austro-Hungarian monarchy? Opernball in the Zagreb Croatian National Theater was a good rehearsal for something like that! It makes no sense to argue about all that, as no one is more prepared for empty discussions, no one is more ready to keep repeating the same out of tune song as Croats. After being thoroughly robbed in their new independent state (by we now whom), Croats are supposed to be deprived of the only thing they still have: their language. Finally, let me remind those who do not know, or pretend not to know that Marko Marulic, the father of the Croatian literature, was in his times read and respected all over, in its way globalized Europe. He was read and respected, but not for his verses written in Croatian, but for theological treatises written in Latin, the language of civilization at the time. Can we draw any lessons from his case?