Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Slavs vs. Slavophones

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Native language
    Native: русский (Russian), home country: English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    The topic started by El Tigre is aggresive. Why do we need to highlight and emphasise differences? Yes, there are always differences, even between people living next door, belonging to the same ethnic group and you can find similarities between between people who have nothing in common culturally.

    National identity is about what we think we are, no doubt. Same applies to belonging to language groups. If we think we are Slavs, we accept the fact that we have similarities in languages and traditions, show interest in these similarities and in other similar nations, then it all makes sense.

    The war in Yugoslavia has created a lot of hatred between similar peoples and many are now trying to highlight how dissimilar they are. It will take a long time before the hatred is reconciled, IMHO.

    The term "Slavophone" may apply to people who don't belong a Slavic group but speak a Slavic language, for example Jewish people living in Russia (for many of them Russian is their first language), a large portion of russified nationalities who lost their language or Greek Macedonians (or rather Greeks, speaking a Macedonian dialect) or any other native who speaks a Slavic language as their first language for whatever reason but who don't consider themselves belonging to a Slavic nation but by no means to Slavs themselves, unless we want to say that Slavs, among other things speaks a Slavic language.

    Slavic languages and people speaking them have been classified long ago and I don't see reasons to change it, even we take into account current or past hostilities between some of them.
    Last edited by Anatoli; 6th March 2007 at 12:51 AM.
    Анатолий أناتولي 阿纳托利 アナトーリー 아나톨리 अनातोली อานาโตลี آناتولی

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Native language
    Croatian/Bosnia, Croatia
    Posts
    1,654

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Jana337 View Post
    You seem to believe that if we didn't have a common Slavic forum, Croatian would be somehow entitled to a forum of its own. Let me debunk this fallacy. The decision to create this forum was not uncontroversial, and I swear I weighed all pros and contras carefully. The alternative was to keep the Slavic languages in Other languages. Predictably, Russian would soon emerge strong enough to have its own forum. Polish and Czech maybe as well, much later. The other Slavic languages, Croatian included, would have had to dwell in OL and wait for a miracle.
    Not to mention that even if Croatian ever got separated from the OL group, this might easily happen in the form of placing it (at least initially) into a company, shall we say, both narrower and less desirable to most Croats than the general Slavic group.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The topic started by El Tigre is aggresive.
    First of all :it was not me who strted the topic. Jana has made it from one of my statements.
    Second:aggressive is too rude word ... Don't you think so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    Why do we need to highlight and emphasise differences? Yes, there are always differences, even between people living next door, belonging to the same ethnic group and you can find similarities between between people who have nothing in common culturally.
    To make myself clear I need to say something. Yes , there are some similarities between Slavophones. As well as there are ome similarities beetween speakers of Germanic or Romance languages.

    But , what ex. English people have in commons with Germans or Scandinavians(Norwegians, Swedes, Danes)?? Similar languages ?? yes
    Something else????




    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The war in Yugoslavia has created a lot of hatred between similar peoples and many are now trying to highlight how dissimilar they are. It will take a long time before the hatred is reconciled, IMHO.
    No. The idea of Yugoslavia was to join all countries where were spoken similar (South Slavic) languages. Presuming that we (by default ) have similar inheritage etc...
    Differences (huge ones) existed before 1918 ....
    Visit Croatia!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Native language
    Native: русский (Russian), home country: English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    If the word "agressive" offends you, I apologise. I didn't say that you are aggressive, personally. It's nothing personal but the topic is aggressive in itself. There's too much going on about how different we are (not in linguistic sense), which creates aggression far beyond online forums. If Slavic, Semitic, etc. nations talked more about how close they are, we would have less aggression.

    But , what ex. English people have in commons with Germans or Scandinavians(Norwegians, Swedes, Danes)?? Similar languages ?? yes
    Something else????
    I understand your point, just don't see why this is so important. Language is one of the things that distinguishes an ethnic group from others (I am agnostic, not worried about the religion at all), communication is established much faster between non-linguists who move/travel to an area speaking a similar language.
    Анатолий أناتولي 阿纳托利 アナトーリー 아나톨리 अनातोली อานาโตลี آناتولی

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    vienna
    Native language
    Boarisch, Österreich (Austria)
    Posts
    623

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    As I said, I do believe that there are similarities and shared traits between the Slavic people, but I don't believe that any of these is strictly limited to Slavic speaking people. Most common historical experiences and common ancestry (starting at least from the Slavic migrations in the Early Middle Ages) that contributed to the similarities are shared by non-Slavic people in the region (most notably, Romania, Hungary, Albania, most of Austria and Greece as well as Friulio).

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by beclija View Post
    As I said, I do believe that there are similarities and shared traits between the Slavic people, but I don't believe that any of these is strictly limited to Slavic speaking people.
    Precisely that was my idea!!!
    Visit Croatia!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Warum wohne ich bloß in so einem KAFF?
    Native language
    World - 1.German, 2.Russian, 3.English
    Age
    27
    Posts
    623

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The term "Slavophone" may apply to people who don't belong a Slavic group but speak a Slavic language, for example Jewish people living in Russia (for many of them Russian is their first language)
    What makes the Christian (or by any other way non-Jewish) speaker of Russian more Slavic?
    Last edited by übermönch; 8th March 2007 at 12:20 AM.
    אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Native language
    Native: русский (Russian), home country: English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by übermönch View Post
    What makes the Christian (or by any other way non-Jewish) speaker of Russian more Slavic?
    Their own identity - Jews speaking Russian say about themselves that they just happen to be Russian speaking if they haven't mastered Hebrew or Yiddish (both non-Slavic language). If they move to US, their first language may become English and they will not try to save it (it depends, of course) for their kids. Nothing to do with the religion. Bosnians Muslims are Slavs (it's their native, not just first language). In this case people of non-Slavic origin who use a Slavic language as a means for communications but don't consider themselves belonging to that language might be called Slavopones, IMO.
    Анатолий أناتولي 阿纳托利 アナトーリー 아나톨리 अनातोली อานาโตลี آناتولی

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Warum wohne ich bloß in so einem KAFF?
    Native language
    World - 1.German, 2.Russian, 3.English
    Age
    27
    Posts
    623

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Allright, and how can you decide wether a people is of 'Slavic origin' or not? Could you give a precise definition of 'a Slav'? For instance, a Jew is someone who was born to a Jewish mother, a German is a citizen of the FRG - what is a Slav? If it is a culture, the belonging only relies on a personal statement and thus you cannot generalise about 'the Bosnians', 'the Japanese' or any other peoples, for these entities consist of individuals each of whom decides for himself wether he is 'Slavic', 'Elven', 'Martian', 'Klingon' or anything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    (it's their native, not just first language).
    I allways thought "first language" and "native tongue" were just synonyms, I see I was wrong - were's the difference? Can your native language be one you never ever even heared?
    Last edited by übermönch; 8th March 2007 at 9:00 PM.
    אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Native language
    čeština
    Posts
    18,726

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    I allways thought "first language" and "native tongue" were just synonyms, I see I was wrong - were's the difference? Can your native language be one you never ever even heared?
    I think you might fight something about it in the Cultural forum. Imagine that your native language is, say, Yiddish but you were schooled in, say, German. Your exposure to German makes you more comfortable in this language than in Yiddish. Not an unlikely scenario, is it?
    A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. Saul Bellow

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Native language
    Native: русский (Russian), home country: English
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by übermönch View Post
    Allright, and how can you decide wether a people is of 'Slavic origin' or not? Could you give a precise definition of 'a Slav'? For instance, a Jew is someone who was born to a Jewish mother, a German is a citizen of the FRG - what is a Slav? If it is a culture, the belonging only relies on a personal statement and thus you cannot generalise about 'the Bosnians', 'the Japanese' or any other peoples, for these entities consist of individuals each of whom decides for himself wether he is 'Slavic', 'Elven', 'Martian', 'Klingon' or anything else.

    I allways thought "first language" and "native tongue" were just synonyms, I see I was wrong - were's the difference? Can your native language be one you never ever even heared?
    I can't see any problem with this description, I have already explained what I meant and I don't mean to insult anyone, it's just your personal feeling who you belong to. If you think you are a Gypsy, Armenian, Jew, Kazakh but you grew up in Russia, can you call yourself a Slav? Yes, if you only wish so, you can call yourself Russian, not Russian speaking (a very common term is "русскоговорящие" (the Russian speaking) if they want to avoid saying Russians in Kazakhstan or Azerbaidjan, for example. The term "русскоговорящие" means people who normally speak Russian, it doesn't have to be their native tongue.

    Even the word "Russians" can be translated into Russian as "русские" or "россияне". The former meaning ethnic or native Russians, the latter meaning "the citizens of Russia". The 2nd one is more politically correct and is used by politicians to address the Russian public. "Россияне" includes (ethnic) Russians and non-Russians (Slavophones among them).

    "Native vs first language". E.g, a Chinese person who grew up in Australia speaks English much better than Chinese, let alone writing, etc. His first language is English but according to his parents it's Chinese (maybe according to himself too). It's maybe hard to say - how can a native language be less known than another one. I guess, it's your own attitude to your native language, maybe you're trying to learn it, remember traditions but it's hard because you have no time, enough exposure, etc.
    Last edited by Anatoli; 9th March 2007 at 1:36 AM.
    Анатолий أناتولي 阿纳托利 アナトーリー 아나톨리 अनातोली อานาโตลี آناتولی

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Native language
    English
    Posts
    1,396

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Your first language is the first language you learned

    Your native language: well, that depends on what culture you define your identity to be around. If your parents are Chinese but you are Australian, then your native language is English, and your first language probably English as well unless you immigrated after you learned Mandarin. If you are in Canada but you identify yourself as a Polish person, then your native language is Polish, whether or not you might have learned English first and speak it best.

    Unfortunately, in places where there is a lot of ethnic nationalism, i.e. where people's belonging in a state depends on their "blood" (in other words, how 'skillfully' they chose their parents when being born rather than on actual loyalty, culture, values, and beliefs), there is little debate between who's a Slav and who's a slavophone. If your parents are Slav, you are forever a Slav and so will your children even if they want to become Canadian/Australian later on. Slavophones are merely anyone who speaks a Slavic language.
    Introduzca su firma aquí

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: All Slavic languages: Mutual intelligibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Maja View Post
    So you are basically saying that all Croats suffer from short-term memory loss? And that you remember more things about the country under which rule you were some 100 years ago, but not so much about the country with which you were neighbors for centuries, lived in the joined state only 15 years ago, with which you share same language, in which your fathers and grandfathers served military service, married Serbian women, went to universities, shared television, had the same newspapers, same school books, etc??? Come on!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by beclija View Post
    Which part do you doubt? The one about the average Croatian being able to tell you five cities in Germany in a breath? You're probably right. Or the one about him/her not being able to tell you five cities in Serbia? el_tigre is probably right, though maybe for reasons other than the ones he claims. And this is not saying anything about Croatian education system, the same probably holds for any country I've been to long enough to tell.
    I can guarantee for my statements for the people till 30 . In fact I am quite sure.
    I started to attend school in 1990.
    In geography classes I learned much more about countries like USA , Germany, Italy. Serbia was mentioned in just short lesson, basic geographic fact. Just like one country in the neighbourhood, part of SE Europe etc.
    I have seen bunch of American movies, we are able to see 3-4 of them every day. but some Serbian movie ,rarely.
    In fact , during 90s we almost haven't seen Serbian movies at Croatian tv-stations at all. Neither Serbian music on radio stations.

    Summa summarum , to Croatian youth people(under 30) Serbia is equally terra incognita as are ex. Albania or Hungary, whose languages we don't understand at all.
    Visit Croatia!

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: All Slavic languages: Mutual intelligibility

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    Interestingly, I was taught in school that the similarities between Kajkavian and Slovenian were in fact superficial and accidental.
    Well, they are superficial and accidental because these similarities were not made just by somebody's decision. They existed for centuries. Untill cca 200 years kajkavian was spoken in practically all Panonian Croatia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    Of course, that was during the years of wartime nationalism, when it was highly politically incorrect to point out the quite obvious fact that there exists a virtually unbroken dialect continuum from Slovenia to Macedonia and Bulgaria.
    Division of languages by nationality sometimes really makes no sense.

    Ex. Indians with 800 languages (20 officiall)+ english.
    Visit Croatia!

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Athaulf View Post
    Exactly so. And I'd add that it's the fault of not just the Soviet empire, but also of other historical initiatives to politically unite Slavic peoples based on dubious (at best) ideological schemes. By this I primarily mean some rather hypocritical attempts at using Pan-Slavism as a political tool by the Imperial Russia, as well as two tragically failed attempts at uniting South Slavs minus Bulgarians into a single state. (One could argue that the first of those two attempts wasn't going so badly when it was suddenly interrupted by WW2, but that's a topic for some other discussion.)
    The Panslavism has been one ideology from 19th century. That period of time was period of sing the nationalism and creating the nations in modern meaning of that word.


    One of the theories from that time prsumed that similarity of the languages must mean similarity of culture , menthality, compatiblity of the ethnic groups. It meant that also that speakers of the similar languages are natural allies .


    That theories appeared to be true in case of Italian unification (Risorgimento) and creating the Italian nation. But on the other cases failed.
    Czech & Slovaks , Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes ) , Pan-German Unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Germanism ) have shown us that it was the wrong theory.


    And case of South Slavic countries (Yugoslavia+Bulgaria) has shown that these theories were complete disaster.


    Apart from these "language=nation" theories, we can see the example of Switzerland. Very sccessful, rich country and multilingual!
    Swiss brand is always recognized as Swiss . Whether is Germanic or Romance it is irrelevant.
    Man from Switzerland can be Johann , Jean or Giovanni , but first of all: Swiss!
    Visit Croatia!

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Serbia
    Native language
    Serbo-Croatian
    Age
    44
    Posts
    702

    Re: All Slavic languages: Mutual intelligibility

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    First of all :there ar no Slavs. We can talk only about slavophones.(speakers of Slavic languages) . Besides the similar languages slavophones have almost nothing in common. There are no Slavic culture, Slavic menthality etc...
    Anglophone: adj: of, having, or belonging to an English-speaking population especially in a country where two or more languages are spoken; noun: an English-speaking person especially in a country where two or more languages are spoken

    The similar explanations are given for Francophone, Spanofone (Hispanophone) etc. Those terms refer to people who may live in different countries and be of different ethnical origin (like Americans - they are Anglophones), but speaking the same language. We are speaking about Hispanophonic areas - which include Spain and the giant part of South America. So "slavophonic" would mean people who live anywhere, and are of any origin, but speak Slavic language. Slavic language doesn't exist itself, though Slavs do exist as a grupation, as well as many other grupations. So that's a wrong term, and though some good and interesting things were said in some of the other posts, the very premise is utterly wrong from a linguistical point.

    Does one feel like a Slav or not - that's his personal right and a matter of choice. Russians and Serbs have a lovely expression for that - "Slavyanska duša"; it refers to a specific Slavic sentiment and shows that some of us still feel like Slavs though we speak different languages. So no, we are not "Slavophonic", we feel like Slavs.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Orebić
    Native language
    Croatian(štokavski+čakavski)
    Age
    32
    Posts
    204

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Jana337 View Post
    Indeed.

    Still, I feel there is something we Slavs have in common - and not just because we speak similar languages and because geography allows history to treat us similarly. For example, I am sure we share a great deal of legends and fairy-tales. It might be interesting to know more about their impact on one's personality in the formative years.
    Hm ...

    In school we have learned a lot of the things about Greek mythology! And almost nothing about Slavic!


    So , that is so!

    Anyway I have seen somobody here taliing about Moldavians and Latino Americans:

    Roman Emperor Traian conqueresd Romania and Moldova in 2nd century A.D. that territory was Roman until 270 A.D. In that time their inhabitants accepted Latin language that evolved into todays' Romanian/Moldavian.

    Territory of Spain/Portugal was conquered 2 centuries before. Their inhabitants accepted Latin language as well. In the 16th century
    inhabitants of these countries started to colonize the South and Central America imposing their languages to the indigenous population. Today , the indigenous population of South and Central America speak Romance language(s). what does make them similar to Romanians/Moldavs??

    Almost nothing. it is not truth that they were separated! they have never been connected. So , expression Romance nation makes no sense . As well as it makes no sense to talk about Polinesian people.
    Last edited by el_tigre; 3rd November 2007 at 12:10 AM.
    Visit Croatia!

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Native language
    Bulgarian
    Posts
    336

    About the Slavophonia ...

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    First of all :there ar no Slavs. We can talk only about slavophones.(speakers of Slavic languages) . Besides the similar languages slavophones have almost nothing in common. There are no Slavic culture, Slavic menthality etc...
    I would agree with el_tigre: there are no Slavic culture, Slavic menthality, Slavic genotype etc but Slavic languages.

    I use both terms Slavs and Slavophones as synonyms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finner View Post
    I hardly believe that Slavs are coming from the same brunch of people.When language moves from one place to another (Poland->Yugoslavia->Russia) it means that people moved there.
    Quote Originally Posted by beclija View Post
    Of course people moved there, but they were not the only people at their new location. Indeed, the (Slavic-speaking) people that migrated to whichever country in the Eastern half of Europe that was non-Slavic-speaking prior to the 6th/7th Centuries AD were probably a minority in most places. Whether the language of the Slavic newcomers or that of the old inhabitants, or in some cases that of even later newcomers survived and managed to supress the other might reflect historical accidents rather than the make-up of the population of any given area at 700AD. During the Migration Period, Slavs settled, among others, in at least the northern half of Greece and the eastern two thirds of Austria, as well as present day Hungary. Parts of Austria, far away from any present-day Slavic-speaking areas, are believed to have been bi- or trilingual well into the 12th or even 13th centuries (pre-Migration Romance, Slavic, and Germanic/Bavarian). If these areas had been integrated into a Slavic rather than German empire, power relations between the languages would have been different and I might be speaking a language intermediate between Slovenian and Czech today (and you possibly a language close to Bulgarian under similar circumstances). It is well imaginable (in fact, expectable) that the genetic make-up of the populations of parts of Greece, Austria, Hungary, etc. shows more "Slavic" elements than that of some Slavic-speaking areas. Indeed, I believe I read of some article that claims that genetic markers whose distribution makes it likely to identify them as a trace of the Slavic migration are found more commonly in Hungary than in any South Slavic speaking area.
    Please realise that, in the past, people could change their language as easily as they could change their religion.

    In the 7th century, the population of Egypt changed their religion (from Christianity to Islam) and their language (from Coptic or Greek to Arabic) at the same time. No more new-comers were necessary for the language change than the priests necessary for the religion conversion.

    The same happened in the Great Russia (or Moskovia): the Slavophonia was brought there by the Christian priests, first of all.

    Please realise that, in the past, the religion was of greater importance than usually modern people could suppose.

    The middle Danube was the area where the Slavophonia initially developed. The Slavophonia spread from the middle Danube into all directions. The territory of present Rumania and Hungary was presumably Slavophone in the 9th century, e.g..

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    Croatia has been in common country with Hungary for 800 years, with Austria 400 years. With Serbia less than 80.
    I would agree again. Although Croates and Serbs, generally speaking, share the same language, they do not share the past. Thus, I would say that Croates and Hungarians have the same culture but different languages.

    Another example: although the Bulgarian (incl. Macedonian) language is much close to Serbo-Croatian and Russian, Bulgarians (&Macedonians) have more in common with Greeks and Romanians than with Serbs or Russians. (For FYRO-Macedonians, this was true some 100 years ago and is not true anymore. Present-day FYRO-Macedonians are presumably serbophiles and, as part of their national ideology, hate all their neighbours except the Serbs.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Finner View Post
    .. Albanians does exist ( as a country) because the Great Powers had that wish.
    Albanians have always existed, at least during the last five centuries.

    Albania, as an independent country, does exist because the Great Powers had that wish. The same is true for Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia and any other country in Europe, Mediterranean area and Middle East except the Great Powers themselves.

    E.g., Greece exists as an independent country just because the Great Powers had that wish at the beginning of the 19th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maja View Post
    So you are basically saying that all Croats suffer from short-term memory loss? And that you remember more things about the country under which rule you were some 100 years ago, but not so much about the country with which you were neighbors for centuries, lived in the joined state only 15 years ago, with which you share same language, in which your fathers and grandfathers served military service, married Serbian women, went to universities, shared television, had the same newspapers, same school books, etc??? Come on!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Maja View Post
    What makes them similar (in some sense) is their Slavic origin.
    These are the languages (Serbian&Croatian) that have Slavic origin. The term "origin of a nation" is undefined, generally speaking.

    Anyway, the nation of Croates emerged in the Danubian empire (Hungary/Austria) while the nation of Serbs emerged in the Ottoman empire. Any events in the more distant past are of less importance now. During the last 100 years, although in the same state named Yugoslavia, Croates and Serbs lived as separate nations. For instance, during the WW2, there was a civil war in Yugoslavia between Croatian nationalists and Serbian nationalists, both sides being supported by the German nazis.

    Actually, there are much stranger events in the Slavic world than the separation of Serbs and Croates: these are the separation of Belorussia and Ukraina from Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jana337 View Post
    Still, I feel there is something we Slavs have in common - and not just because we speak similar languages and because geography allows history to treat us similarly. For example, I am sure we share a great deal of legends and fairy-tales. It might be interesting to know more about their impact on one's personality in the formative years.
    In my opinion, there is nothing common for the Slavs but the Slavophonia. I mean all the Slavophones. E.g. Russians and Czechs have nothing in common but the Slavophonia and perhaps the panslavic idea that I can see in your thoughts, dear Jana. There are no legends and fairy-tales especially common to all the Slavophones. There are Christian legends and European fairy-tales, most probably.

    The idea that Slavs have something in common beyond the Slavophonia (the panslavic idea) emerged in 19-th century in both the Russian and the Danubian empires. In Russia, it was (or is?) a part of its imperial ideology. In the Danubian empire, it was used to emancipate Slavophones. Later, both sources of the panslavic idea met in Serbia which became a fire-place for wars in Europe's miserable 20th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jana337 View Post
    Due to the vagaries of history, our peoples spent decades in a barbed-wire enclosed empire (which speaks volumes about its nature). This makes you naturally more attracted to and interested in the free, rich outside world ..
    All nations are products of the vagaries of the history. The centuries spent in multi-ethnic empires are not wasted: they actually gave birth to our modern nations.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Native language
    Bulgarian
    Posts
    336

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The topic started by El Tigre is aggresive. Why do we need to highlight and emphasise differences?
    Highlighting and emphasising similarities (between Slavophones in this case) is highlighting and emphasising differences at the same time.

    If we emphasise the similarity of Croates and Serbs as two nations sharing the same language, at the same time, we emphasise the difference between Croates and Hungarians. In my opinion, the main and only difference between Croates and Hungarians is the language while among the differences between Croates and Serbs one might list religion, culture, long imperial past etc.

    If we emphasise the similarity of Bulgarians and Russians, e.g., as Slavophones, we emphasise at the same time the difference between Bulgarians and Romanians and Greeks thus ignoring the things Bulgarians and Romanians and Greeks have in common: culture, imperial past, neighbourhood (comşuluk) etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    National identity is about what we think we are, no doubt. Same applies to belonging to language groups.
    Belonging to language groups is not the same as the national identity. While the latter is a self-identification, the former is actually a diagnosis. The Slavophonia is rather a diagnosis than a self-identification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    If we think we are Slavs, we accept the fact that we have similarities in languages and traditions, show interest in these similarities and in other similar nations, then it all makes sense.
    We do not think we are Slavs. We rather think we are Bulgarians, Serbs, Russians, Poles, etc. We accept the fact that we have similarities in languages in the same manner as we accept a medical diagnosis: it is true and we simply have to accept the true.

    However, there are no such traditions which are shared by all the Slavophones beyond those common to all civilized peoples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The war in Yugoslavia has created a lot of hatred between similar peoples and many are now trying to highlight how dissimilar they are. It will take a long time before the hatred is reconciled, IMHO.
    The war in Yugoslavia was caused by Milošević's attempt to change the borders between former Yugoslave republic. Eltsyn, being much smarter than Milošević, did not make any attempt to change the border between Russia and Ukraina, e.g.: that's why we observed a peacefull separation there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    The term "Slavophone" may apply to people who don't belong a Slavic group but speak a Slavic language, for example Jewish people living in Russia
    The Jewish people living in Russia are Slavophones, of course.

    If you define "Slavic groups" as an enumeration of Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croates, Poles, etc, then Jewish people living in Russia do not belong to any "Slavic group". Nevertheless, we merely could enumerate "Jewish people speaking Russian" as a "Slavic group" along with the other "Slavic groups" if "Jewish people speaking Russian" wished that.

    However, we could merely live without defining any "Slavic groups" and only think about Slavic languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    Slavic languages and people speaking them have been classified long ago and I don't see reasons to change it, even we take into account current or past hostilities between some of them.
    People speaking Slavic languages have their own self-identification (Russian, Bulgarian, etc) which we have to respect.

    Slavic languages were classified just two centuries ago. Before the 17th century, there was no common term to name the Slavophones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anatoli View Post
    I understand your point, just don't see why this is so important. Language is one of the things that distinguishes an ethnic group from others (I am agnostic, not worried about the religion at all), communication is established much faster between non-linguists who move/travel to an area speaking a similar language.
    The past cannot be comprehensible to those ignoring religion and empires.

    In the past, there were large and stable communities based on the religion and/or on the imperial idea rather than on the common language. Such nations were Romans, Ottomans, e.g.

    Quote Originally Posted by beclija View Post
    As I said, I do believe that there are similarities and shared traits between the Slavic people, but I don't believe that any of these is strictly limited to Slavic speaking people. Most common historical experiences and common ancestry (starting at least from the Slavic migrations in the Early Middle Ages) that contributed to the similarities are shared by non-Slavic people in the region (most notably, Romania, Hungary, Albania, most of Austria and Greece as well as Friulio).
    I would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    If your parents are Slav, you are forever a Slav and so will your children even if they want to become Canadian/Australian later on. Slavophones are merely anyone who speaks a Slavic language.
    What about the descendents of German (or Slavic) immigrants to Latin America (e.g. Argentina)? Are they true latinos (argentinos)? I think yes, they are.

    Anyone who speaks a Slavic language is a Slavophone (or Slav). Anyone who cannot speak any Slavic language cannot be a Slav even if his/her parents were Slavs.

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    To make myself clear I need to say something. Yes , there are some similarities between Slavophones. As well as there are ome similarities beetween speakers of Germanic or Romance languages.

    But , what ex. English people have in commons with Germans or Scandinavians(Norwegians, Swedes, Danes)?? Similar languages ?? yes
    Something else????
    Yes. Please note that there are no common term for "Germanophones". This is because there was not such an empire to explore the pangermanic idea neither were there people to use such an idea for emancipation.

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    Apart from these "language=nation" theories, we can see the example of Switzerland. Very sccessful, rich country and multilingual!
    Swiss brand is always recognized as Swiss . Whether is Germanic or Romance it is irrelevant.

    Man from Switzerland can be Johann , Jean or Giovanni , but first of all: Swiss!
    Yes. This is a good example.

    By the way, about 100 years ago, there were two slogans among fighters for freedom of Macedonia, still belonging to the Ottoman empire at that time: "Macedonia - Switzerland of the Balkans" and "Macedonia to the Macedonians". The idea was not to divide Macedonia but to establish an independent country named Macedonia where all Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Turks living in that country would be first of all: Macedonians. That idea failed. Now, FYRO-Macedonians usurped this name and Greeks are so unhappy of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    The idea of Yugoslavia was to join all countries where were spoken similar (South Slavic) languages. Presuming that we (by default ) have similar inheritage etc...
    Differences (huge ones) existed before 1918 ....
    [quote=el_tigre;3864522]The Panslavism has been one ideology from 19th century. That period of time was period of sing the nationalism and creating the nations in modern meaning of that word.

    One of the theories from that time prsumed that similarity of the languages must mean similarity of culture , menthality, compatiblity of the ethnic groups. It meant that also that speakers of the similar languages are natural allies .

    That theories appeared to be true in case of Italian unification (Risorgimento) and creating the Italian nation. But on the other cases failed.
    Czech & Slovaks , Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes ) , Pan-German Unification have shown us that it was the wrong theory.

    And case of South Slavic countries (Yugoslavia+Bulgaria) has shown that these theories were complete disaster./quote]
    Yes, Serbia took the unification idea from Italy: there was a slogan there: "Serbia - the Piemonte on the Balkans". Serbs believed they had the mission to unite all Slavophones on the Balkans. This idea caused a complete disaster not only to Serbia, not only to the Balkans, but to the whole Europe.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Native language
    Bulgarian
    Posts
    336

    Re: Slavs vs. Slavophones

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    ..
    Roman Emperor Traian conqueresd Romania and Moldova in 2nd century A.D. that territory was Roman until 270 A.D. In that time their inhabitants accepted Latin language that evolved into todays' Romanian/Moldavian.
    Those are myths.

    Romans did not reach Moldova.

    The Roman Emperor Traian did conquer Dacia, now part of Romania, but Romans did not stay there for too long and their language did not survive.

    The Romano-balkanic language originated in Balkan territories south of Danube that belonged to the Roman empire more than a millenium. The modern Romano-balkanic language (Romanian/Valachian/Moldovan) was brought to the territory of present-day Romania not earlier than in the 11th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by el_tigre View Post
    ..
    Today , the indigenous population of South and Central America speak Romance language(s). what does make them similar to Romanians/Moldavs??

    Almost nothing. it is not truth that they were separated! they have never been connected. So , expression Romance nation makes no sense . As well as it makes no sense to talk about Polinesian people.
    Yes, I agree.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •