Forum
- Home
- Forum
Notifications
Clear all
The Boys & Men Forum
110
Posts
10
Users
11
Reactions
1,811
Views
04/09/2025 7:34 am
Yes, it is clearly understandable but I wouldn't call it "Croatian" just like you wouldn't call your English as "Canadian".I'm sorry, but I don't understand this comment.
Then let me brake it down for you. In Britain, Canada, USA and Australia you are all speaking English language. Right? And you ain't saying that "I"m speaking a Canadian language" or "Australian language" or "American language". You all are aware that it is the same language which maybe has different dialects in different countries but you are not claiming that the English language in Canada is a different language from one in Britain nor are you calling it a "Canadian language" because that would sound stupid. Right? So far so good?
Ok, now, the language that you were speaking/writing" above is a Serbian language with a "ijekavski" dialect, which differentiates from the dialect in present day central Serbia which is called "ekavski" dialect. So for example in Istria you would say words like "lijepo", "bijelo", "mlijeko" and in central Serbia you would say those same words without the "ij" element like this: "lepo", "belo", "mleko". However that's only a dialect but the language is the same and the grammar is the same.
So, I, who never in my life learned "Croatian language" and never was in a "Croatian school" nor did I attended for a "Croatian class" in my school days. How is it possible for me to fully understand your "Croatian" and even if I would want to, I could even use that dialect without a problem?
So hear me out. Isn't it the case that maybe and just maybe the language that they speak in present day "Croatia" and in present day Central Serbia could be the same language? Oh and also in the so called "Bosnia" and "Montenegro"? Couldn't that be the case?
Now to put the joke aside. Before WWII there was no such language as "Croatian" or "Bosnian" or "Montenegrin". In all those places the language that they used was called Serbian. But the same things happened like in Ukraine today. Those regions (by foreign influence of course and especially by English/Jewish influence and infiltration) were making up things, calling that language with imaginary names, started making up stupid words etc. with a single failed purpose to differentiate it from what it was and still is.
So all in all, if I would say to you that you are speaking a "Canadian language" and not English. Wouldn't that sound stupid?
04/09/2025 8:10 am
Yes, Dominus, I know that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc., are pretty much the same language. However, there are some minor differences in vocabulary and grammar which would be obvious to someone from Serbia or Montenegro, and that's why I felt the need to stress that I was writing my reply to Vizionar in the Croatian variant (since he would probably notice these differences, even if they're small).
Now, regarding the red, bolded part in the following paragraph of your post:
Ok, now, the language that you were speaking/writing" above is a Serbian language with a "ijekavski" dialect, which differentiates from the dialect in present day central Serbia which is called "ekavski" dialect. So for example in Istria you would say words like "lijepo", "bijelo", "mlijeko" and in central Serbia you would say those same words without the "ij" element like this: "lepo", "belo", "mleko". However that's only a dialect but the language is the same and the grammar is the same.
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but technically the Slavs of Istria who actually speak the indigenous Istrian language/dialect, known as istrijanski or čakavski, wouldn't say "lijepo", "bijelo", etc., since that's the standard Croatian version. Istrian has a long and rich history, it's much older than Croatian (štokavski), and the two differ from each other considerably in both grammar and vocabulary.
04/09/2025 8:46 am
Oh, and one more thing...
Before WWII there was no such language as "Croatian" or "Bosnian" or "Montenegrin". In all those places the language that they used was called Serbian. But the same things happened like in Ukraine today.
The above comment is obviously not true. I understand that hardcore Serbian nationalists feel the need to say this since they hate Croats so much that they even refuse to acknowledge their existence as a people, but for our neutral readers who might not know much about the subject: the Croats of olden times obviously didn't refer to their language as "Serbian". They already had their Croatian identity formed, and the term "Croatian" (which would be hrъvatskъ, hrvatski or hrvacki in Croatian) appears in old texts from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (i.e. long before WWII).
04/09/2025 9:35 am
Yes, Dominus, I know that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc., are pretty much the same language. However, there are some minor differences in vocabulary and grammar which would be obvious to someone from Serbia or Montenegro.
The Texan English and the Cockney English sounds way more different than the so called "Croatian" and Serbian language"s". However, you still call both of them as English.....
Why are you not calling them as "Texan language" and "Cockney language"? Isn't that hypocritical?
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but technically the Slavs of Istria who actually speak the indigenous Istrian language/dialect, known as istrijanski or čakavski, wouldn't say "lijepo", "bijelo", etc., since that's the standard Croatian version. Istrian has a long and rich history, it's much older than Croatian (štokavski), and the two differ from each other considerably in both grammar and vocabulary.
Almost no one in present day Croatia speaks "Čakavski" nor in Istria itself. Its an antique thing and most of the present day Croatians don't even know what it is.
And yes, in Istria today most of the people will say "lijepo", "bijelo", "mlijeko".
After WWII Tito cleansed Istria from Italians and with it the "Čakavski" almost disappeared. Which is a shame in my opinion.
04/09/2025 10:34 am
Almost no one in present day Croatia speaks "Čakavski" nor in Istria itself. Its an antique thing and most of the present day Croatians don't even know what it is.
Actually, it's not quite that bad. There are several tens of thousands of people in Istria who still speak Istrian/Chakavian/čakavski, and many more in the diaspora. (I'm one of these people, and so are many of my childhood friends and relatives.)
And yes, in Istria today most of the people will say "lijepo", "bijelo", "mlijeko".
Well, if they speak standard Croatian, then yes, obviously.
After WWII Tito cleansed Istria from Italians and with it the "Čakavski" almost disappeared.
Not really. Most of the people who left (or who were driven away) were ethnic Italians or Italianized Slavs, and they mainly spoke Italian - or rather, Venetian, which is an Italian dialect or regional Romance language. The Slavs who stayed in Istria continued to speak Istrian, and it continued to be their first language/mother tongue for several decades.
Which is a shame in my opinion.
Thank you for saying this.
04/09/2025 10:43 am
Oh, and one more thing...
Before WWII there was no such language as "Croatian" or "Bosnian" or "Montenegrin". In all those places the language that they used was called Serbian. But the same things happened like in Ukraine today.The above comment is obviously not true. I understand that hardcore Serbian nationalists feel the need to say this since they hate Croats so much that they even refuse to acknowledge their existence as a people, but for our neutral readers who might not know much about the subject: the Croats of olden times obviously didn't refer to their language as "Serbian". They already had their Croatian identity formed, and the term "Croatian" (which would be hrъvatskъ, hrvatski or hrvacki in Croatian) appears in old texts from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (i.e. long before WWII).
I had an interesting discussion with an AI chatbot about this subject, and he basically confirmed what I already knew. I'll post an excerpt here, if that's okay:
Here are examples from historical Croatian sources where speakers explicitly referred to their language as “Croatian” (in forms like hrvacki/hrvatski/hervatski), particularly in reference to the language—notably in medieval and early modern manuscripts:
Examples from Historical Texts
1. Law Code of Vinodol (1288)
-
The oldest legal code in Croatian, written in Glagolitic and Chakavian, uses phrases such as:
-
“zove se hrvatski malik” — “is called the Croatian malik (language/person)”
-
“na hrvatski jezik” — “into Croatian language”
ResearchGate
-
2. Istrian Demarcation Document
-
A later document describing official procedures states:
-
“jednoga latinskoga a drugoga nimškoga, a tretoga hrvackoga, da imamo vsaki na svoj orijinal pisat”
(“one in Latin, another in German, and a third in Croatian, so that each writes in their own original [language]”)
ResearchGate
-
3. Father Martinac (15th Century Glagolitic Scribe)
-
Reflecting on the state of Croatia after the Battle of Krbava (1493), he writes:
-
“nalegoše na jazik harvacki.”
(“they fell upon the Croatian language”)
ResearchGate
-
4. Marko Marulić (16th Century Poet)
-
Often considered the father of Croatian literature, Marulić uses:
-
“Misal hrvacki.” (“Croatian Missal”)
-
“Libar Marka Marula Splićanina … u versih harvacki složena”
(“The Book of Marko Marulić of Split … composed in Croatian verses”) -
“Cilici harvatski se zove vrićišće” (“The tomb is called ‘Croatian tomb’”)
ResearchGate
-
5. 16th Century Reformation Texts
-
Among Protestant writers of the Reformation era:
-
Phrases like “potle u harvacki jazik iz latinskoga verno obraćeni i stumačeni”
(“then into Croatian language faithfully translated and elucidated”) -
And: “jedna malahna kniga ... sada najprvo iz mnozih jazik v hrvacki”
(“a small book … now first of many into Croatian language”)
ResearchGate
-
Summary & Insight
-
Historical Croatian authors from the Middle Ages through the 17th century explicitly named their language hrvacki/hrvatski jezik (“Croatian language”) in their texts.
-
The forms vary — hrvacki, harvacki, hčerŕvatski, and so on — reflecting orthographic diversity of the period. HrčakResearchGate
-
These instances show a long tradition of self-identification: Croats named their own language Croatian, not just the people or territory.
-
There was no usage by Croats of the term “Serbian” (srpski jezik) to describe their language in any medieval or early modern sources—this claim lacks historical basis.
04/09/2025 12:20 pm
@stewart-meadows You didn't answer my question about calling both Texan and Cockney a dialects of the same English language and if that's a hypocrisy, considering that those two dialects sound much more different than the "two languages" called Croatian and Serbian.....
I had an interesting discussion with an AI chatbot about this subject...
We can play the game of AI and "history". Sure...
Here's what AI told me:
The Chronicle of Dalimil, written in Old Czech in the early 14th century, mentions the Serbs multiple times, particularly in the first chapters. It portrays the Serbs as a Slavic people who settled by the sea where the Greeks lived and spread their population as far as Rome. The chronicle states that in the Serbian language there is a land called after the Croats ("Charváti" or "Charvaty"), linking Serbs to the geographic and ethnic context of Croats.
The Serbs are described not just as a people but as part of an ethnolinguistic landscape that includes Croats and Poles, with the origin of the Czech people also linked to this region.
This treatment of Serbs in the chronicle has been subject to analysis for its mythological, historical, and ethnographic implications, with scholars emphasizing its role in medieval Slavic identity construction and the depiction of Slavic ethnogenesis. The texts reflect a widespread medieval belief in the Balkan origins of Slavs and acknowledge Serbs as one of the oldest Slavic tribes.
In summary, the Chronicle of Dalimil mentions Serbs as a significant Slavic group connected to Croatian lands, Mediterranean settlements, and the origin myths of Slavs, especially linking them geographically and linguistically within the Balkans and Mediterranean context.
04/09/2025 9:44 pm
@stewart-meadows You didn't answer my question about calling both Texan and Cockney a dialects of the same English language and if that's a hypocrisy, considering that those two dialects sound much more different than the "two languages" called Croatian and Serbian.....
I'm not saying that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are completely different languages, like English and Dutch, or Swedish and German, for example. If I thought that, then I wouldn't have replied to Vizionar in Croatian since he's (apparently) from Montenegro (and therefore wouldn't have been able to understand me). I would say that they're all pretty much the same language, but with some (minor) differences in vocabulary and grammar.
We can play the game of AI and "history". Sure...
Here's what AI told me:
That quote doesn't back up the bizarre claim you made in one of your previous posts. You wrote:
"Before WWII there was no such language as "Croatian" or "Bosnian" or "Montenegrin". In all those places the language that they used was called Serbian.
That's simply not true, and I disproved your claim by quoting from medieval and Renaissance texts in which the language spoken by Croats was clearly referred to as Croatian (which would be hrvatski or hrvacki).
05/09/2025 12:51 am
@stewart-meadows We call it Yugoslavian as well after WW2 and dominus relatives are understand it very well i am pretty sure.
05/09/2025 7:00 am
I'm not saying that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are completely different languages
And yet you are still referring to them as such.
That quote doesn't back up the bizarre claim you made in one of your previous posts.
It actually does because an totally unbiased Czech source which has nothing to do with Serbia claims that the linguistic which was used in Balkans region is Serbian, even in the region which was called as Croatia, which region was also settled by Serbians.
That's simply not true, and I disproved your claim by quoting from medieval and Renaissance texts in which the language spoken by Croats was clearly referred to as Croatian (which would be hrvatski or hrvacki).
You did not disprove anything because all your sources were Croatian from the university of Rijeka. That's not a valid unbiased source contrary to mine which is a third party Czech source and has nothing to do with Serbia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_Dalimil
05/09/2025 7:40 am
It actually does because an totally unbiased Czech source
"Totally unbiased Czech source"? Seriously, dude? It's a collection of unreliable myths (and anti-German propaganda) that have absolutely no real historical value (certainly not the part about Serbs). I'm quite frankly astonished that you would use that as a source to back up your bizarre pro-Serbian chauvinistic ideas since you only end up compromising your credibility. (I, on the other hand, used legitimate historical documents to back up my claims.)
You did not disprove anything because all your sources were Croatian from the university of Rijeka.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here because my sources were a wide variety of texts from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance which contain the kinds of references to the Croatian language that you weirdly claimed didn't exist. So yes, I did disprove your earlier comments in this thread.
Seriously, is this how Serbian nationalists debate to back up their negative views of Croats (and, I guess, pretty much every other neighboring people that Serbs have traditionally feuded with or been at war with)? If that's the case, it's even worse than I thought.
05/09/2025 8:05 am
@stewart-meadows DomAnus sources is wikipedia...he often use wikipedia as real source but, he don't accept science of DNA or Meditation or History etc. brother, this guy is retard and you just spend your fingers on nobody! I realize that a long time ago but still i respond sometimes because we talk the same language. Actually I talk Montenegrin and he obviously talk some alien Serbian language 😱
You see, he doesn't accept Montenegro or Croatia as states, he is on Serbian radical party mode...
05/09/2025 8:35 am
Whites will never get anywhere if we can't subjugate our petty biases and chauvinisms to White blood and the understanding/non-understanding innate to it. That's the one thing that unites us and enables us to get to the unvarnished White truth, no matter what it might be.
05/09/2025 8:44 am
@stewart-meadows Blood And Honour have great text for Domanus kind of people ,,Parasites in our movement'' but not on English language...However, parasites are all
those who want to elevate themselves at the cost of tripping up their comrades for their own personal
those who want to rise themself at the cost of tripping up their comrades for own personal goals...I think translator did good job...
05/09/2025 10:16 am
It's a collection of unreliable myths
How is one defined as an "unreliable myth" and "propaganda" while the other as a "reliable source" with a "historical value"?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here because my sources were a wide variety of texts from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance which contain the kinds of references to the Croatian language that you weirdly claimed didn't exist. So yes, I did disprove your earlier comments in this thread.
The only source you have provided is this:
with both authors being Croats.....
I could provide you ten times more serious studies from Serbian authors about the same topic, about the linguistic studies of Balkans region. However, no matter how well written would those studies be, they would be biased because the sources would be Serbian.
Czechs on the other hand were never pro-Serbian. They were actually pro-Croatian, especially in the 90's war in former Yugoslavia.
I could provide you more non-Serbian historical documents to prove my point but first I'm waiting if you can provide at least one, which isn't coming from Croatian sources.....
However, if you are claiming that the language which you mentioned as "Croatian", "Bosnian", "Montenegrin", Serbian, that it is actually not really a different language, then you already proved my point.
Also, I don't understand what's the ad hominem about and how is it relevant to the debate? Should we really go down that road?
And don't fall for the glazing of that autistic retard because a year ago he pretended to be a "Serbian nationalist" just so to switch to some kind of a "Montenegrin" or whatever. Next year he will be "Croat" or even "Polish". Actualy, years ago on the Stormfront he claimed to be partly Polish.....