Talk:Kajkavian/Archive 1

Literary language?!
God gracious.

Are they really codifying the "kajkavian" literary language?!

That's...oj vej (forgetting English for a moment). --VKokielov 02:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (They'd just spell it Oy vey :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;  )

ts - c phoneme
"Kajkavian further stands out by lacking phonemes such as 'c' (ц) (instead using the combination of 'ts' as in Hrvatska)," But  is always pronounced as /c/ in standard Croatian even if spelt differently so surely [ts] is only the kakavskian way of pronouncing the same phoneme.Dejvid 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

gda, kak, tak
Why compare "gda", "kak" and "tak" to russian, when you can find them just a bit to the north. The slovene "kdaj" is almost always actually pronounced as "gdaj" and you can find "kak" and "tak"(sometimes also kək and tək) all over Štajerska(Styria). Nerby (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In russian is exactly the same and in slovene is just similar. Shouldn't that be a reason enough? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is about diachronic development. When we start from gda, it would be interesting to know whether ko in kogda or j in gdaj are primary or secondary. If both happen to be primary (eg present in Proto-Slavic), both examples have equal merit. If one is secondary, the other example should be chosen. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert and don't know which is most speaded expression in other Slavic languages, but by comparing same in other similar languages that question should be solved,no ?
 * If it exist just in Slovene, that slovene changes are secondary, but if it exists in Ukraine, Polish, Slovak etc than Russian changes are probably secondary... --Čeha (razgovor) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horvatski that is not "horvatski", but "Kajkavian"????
. This literary language was called horvatski (Croatian). It was just based on Kajkavian dialect, nothing more. Please, give here the source that denies the name horvatski/hervatski of that language. Kubura (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That edit is bad because it mixes modern ethnic/national notion of Croathood with the former strictily regional one. People from other regions of what is today Croatia in various epochs also used the term "Croatian" (hrvatski, horvatski, harvatski etc.), but they certainly 1) didn't refer to themselves as Croats ("Illyrians" and "Slavs" were orders of magnitude more common autonyms) 2) didn't all share the same common identity. It's best to describe the dialect strictly with the dialectological term Kajkavian, devoid of possible ambiguities, without implying or imposing ethnic/national attribution, and keep the discussion of what modern-day/historical nation-states or peoples appropriate its literary corpus in clearly separate sections. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer
I've replaced "Standard" with "Literary" in the table's header since "Standard Kajkavian" doesn't exist. That is to say no one has bothered to standardize it yet and the most that has appeared is something that's used fairly consistently by some writers rather than all people who profess to be native speakers of Kajkavian.

However this doesn't resolve another bit of unease in that the Kajkavian sample of the Lord's Prayer seems excessively similar to the version in standard Croatian (i.e. Neo-Shtokavian Ijekavian) to me. I can't help but think that the table was put up by someone who's not comfortable enough with Kajkavian to use it fluently/natively and instead represents an attempt to make up something in Kajkavian while cribbing off the Neo-Shtokavian version. A more cynical take is that whoever put up the table is trying to show uninformed readers that Kajkavian is tacitly more similar to standard Croatian than to standard Slovenian (thus affirming the Kajkavian speech territory's status as "belonging" to Croatia) despite the concluding comment of the article's lede here as based on Greenberg's article which comes to the opposite conclusion.

This comparison  of the Lord's Prayer also reinforces my doubt about the quality of the current table. The Prekmurian and Kajkavian versions are noticeably different from the standard Croatian in line with the article's general conclusion of Kajkavian's distinctiveness compared to what passes off for (proper) "Croatian" in the minds of the Croatian Language Academy.

Standard Slovene

"Oče naš, ki si v nebesih, posvečeno bodi tvoje ime, pridi k nam tvoje kraljestvo, zgodi se tvoja volja kakor v nebesih tako na zemlji. Daj nam danes naš vsakdanji kruh in odpusti nam naše dolge, kakor tudi mi odpuščamo svojim dolžnikom, in ne vpelji nas v skušnjavo, temveč reši nas hudega. Amen."

Prekmurian

"Oča naš, ki si vu nebésaj! Svéti se Ime tvoje. Pridi králestvo tvoje. Bojdi vola tvoja, kak na nébi, tak i na zemli. Krüha našega vsakdanéšnjega daj nam ga dnes. I odpüsti nam duge naše, kak i mi odpüščamo dužnikom našim. I ne vpelaj nas vu sküšávanje. Nego odslobodi nas od hüdoga. Amen."

Kajkavian

"Japa naš kteri si f 'nebesih, nek sesvete ime Tvoje, nek prihaja cesarstvo Tvoje, nek bu volja Tvoja kakti na nebe tak pa na zemle. Kruhek naš sakdajni nam daj denes ter odpuščaj nam dugi naše, kakti mi odpuščamo dužnikom našim. ter naj nas fpelati vu skušnje, nek nas zbavi od sekih hudobah. Amen."

Standard Croatian

"Oče naš, koji jesi na nebesima, sveti se ime tvoje, dođi kraljevstvo tvoje, budi volja tvoja, kako na nebu tako i na zemlji. Kruh naš svagdanji daj nam danas, i otpusti nam duge naše, kako i mi otpuštamo dužnicima našim, i ne uvedi nas u napast, nego izbavi nas od zla. Amen."

At minimum, I suggest that these examples that I found at christusrex.org be used instead in the article's comparative table. LAuburger (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lauburger! Its time I sent the text to the web site chrisusrex. But in my email was the different variations of the Lord's prayer from Temlin, Szever, Küzmics, Szakovics, Borovnyák, Czipott etc and not comparisons with the Kajkavian and other texts. However the christusrex downloaded the text of wikipedia. I have a new Kajkavian prayer-book from Vilmos Harangozó (1993). Maybe rewrite the text. Doncsecztalk 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Kdo te ima?
Why is this phrase (in the phonetics section) translated as 'Whom do you have?', with 'whom' as the object and 'you' as the subject of the verb 'have'? 'Kdo' is clearly the subject of the verb 'Ima' and 'te' the object, so the only possible translation is 'Who has you?' But, regardless of the grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean?! 89.143.69.182 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)