Newsgroups: alt.uu.lang.misc,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Hungarian / Czecho-Slovakian...not!
Message-ID: <D3r51w.5J9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3ggsse$3eb@gordon.enea.se> <D3AI4K.DuL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <cagalj.2.002E56F1@mailer.uni-marburg.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 21:29:53 GMT
Lines: 110

In article <cagalj.2.002E56F1@mailer.uni-marburg.de> cagalj@mailer.uni-marburg.de (Tomislav K. Cagalj) writes:
>In article <D3AI4K.DuL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>Properly known as Skull MacBone.  Very appropriate designation.
>you tell  me, bonehead.
     ****
Should be `call'.  Okay, if you insist.

>ivan, i still haven't figured out how you actually did gain access to
>a "sci." newsgroup: despite your lack of intellect you desperately
>attempt to sound witty and educated but you constantly fail.

I don't need to attempt anything, desperately or otherwise.  Nor do I
feel obliged to justify my electronic presence on sci.lang to anyone,
least of all to you.

>maybe you should try comprehending the subject the others  discuss

It's not me against the others, Skull, it's you against the others.
I'm one of those discussing the subject, and you're the one with the
divergent opinion that you've shown yourself woefully unable to defend.

>without feeling the urge to cure their inferiority complex

Don't worry.  An inferiority complex meaning thinking less of yourself
than you're worth.  You're trivially immune from that sort of thing.

>by means of impromptu "flaming" as you do, "flamingo"

Thank you.  The flamingo is a beautiful bird.  The nationalist is
a disgusting reptile.

>(in case, they have a complex at all).

Go look up _complex_ in a dictionary.  Your verbal skills leave much
to be desired, but that's the least of your faults.

>>I [...] went to check what the terrific sources [...] had to say
>>about his daft idea that Serbian and Croatian are one and the same
>>`since the [C]ommunist party declared it to be one language at the
>>summit in [N]ovi [S]ad in the fifties'. 
>
>>It must've been a rather powerful party indeed, if the decisions made
>>at its summit could prompt the publication of books in Western Europe
>>and the States 20-30 years before the summit itself!
>hmmm..you are a quick typer, but apparently not too elaborated a reader,
>i see...i did not post that the term had not existed before (as you can 
>easily read in another post of mine), but moreover i said that from
>the summit on it was an official classification.

Irrelevant.  In the article from which that quote came you alluded to
some causal connexion between the Novi Sad summit in the fifties (and
the declaration that Serbian and Croatian are two forms of the same
language) and my present statement to the same effect.  Well, that
connexion doesn't exist.  The authors of the books I cited did not
need the Novi Sad summit to tell them whether Serbian and Croatian
were one language or two.  Neither do I.  I don't care whether that
classification is official or not.  I support it because the lingustic
evidence does, not because the Novi Sad summit or King Alexander does.

>as i said before, it's part of a political agenda. the current harsh
>attempts to stress the differences between the two languages are, of
>course, as well.

Correct.  That's precisely why they don't belong on sci.lang or any
other group of the sci.* hierarchy.  If you have a political agenda,
take it somewhere else.

>as a matter of fact, britain and serbia respectively former
>yugoslavia had a very warm and close relationship, [...]

Ah, I see.  You advise me to use the sources available to me in Britain,
and when I do, and they turn out to say things that won't float your
leaky boat, you suddenly decide that British sources should not be
consulted after all, because they are likely to be biased.  Well, tough.

>and a final question to you: how come in natural sciences theories
>elaborated even 05 (read: FIVE) years ago are found to be either
>wrong or out-of-date

What, all of them?  What's the formula for solving linear equations
(_ax + b = 0_) these days?  10 (read: ten) years ago it was _-b / a_,
but I take it that is out of date now.

>whereas linguist conclusions are deemed
>eternally correct once they were formulated?

They're not.  If you could forget about your political agenda and present
sound linguistic evidence supporting your position, you'd have a convert.
You brought up a few differences some time ago, and I told you why I
didn't consider them sufficient for languagehood.  For a start, try
demonstrating that Serbian and Croatian differ more than British and
American English do.  Then we'll talk.

>languages have changed ever since, and each language undergoes further
>development differently - linguist theories do not, i've learned from you.

No, you can't have learnt that from me, for I never implied it.
Linguistic theories are tested and updated all the time.  If this
particular theory hasn't changed in a while, it's because it is still valid.

>besides, you forgot to mention one book: 
>ILIJA GARASHANIN - "NACHERTANIJE", Belgrade, 1844

It's not that I've forgotten to mention it, but our library doesn't have it.

-- 
`I'm sendin a flood tae pit an end tae it aw.  But dinny worry yersel, Noah.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
