Ailén said:
Oh, forgot to say that I think you are nitpicking a bit here, Stormy Knight. I can't speak for msasa, but from his post I understood he was also referring to two dialects, even if he didn't use that word. Not everybody (even experts cannot agree, as you said) knows the difference between the definition of a language, a dialect, creole, pidgin, etc.
msasa wrote:
I've studied Cro grammar and syntax enough, and through Bosnian father and wife know something about Ser, to say that Ser and Cro are very similar languages but surely not one and the same.
That is close to the definition of a dialect, which is what you are talking about. Dialects can have a slightly different syntax and grammar apart from their lexicon. I believe that is what msasa was trying to explain, even if it wasn't that clear in his post.
My 2 cents.
Thanks Ailen.
I didn't know that different dialects of the same languages can have different syntax and grammar, so I used the term "similar but different languages". From this point of view, yes, Cro and Ser can be regarded as two dialects.
Avala said:
msasa said:
. . . and through Bosnian father and wife know something about Ser, to say that Ser and Cro are very similar languages but surely not one and the same . . .
And through MY Bosnian father I have studied Croatian (which indicates so called "differences", which we are talking about :)).
And if I can understand you when I am hearing in Serbian and you are speaking in Croatian that is OK for me. Two or one, whatever, just leave out biblical gloss please if it is possible. I think that it could push people off the prayer.
It seems that Bosnia is connecting our peoples more than it's been dividing them ;D
I agree, the main thing is that we understand each other when speaking our mother tongues.
And I basically agree about the biblical gloss also. But we have to be careful here.
We've all witnessed (on this forum) how word "religion" (regarding FOTCM formation) created a lot of emotional responses because its meaning has been ponerized (if I understand what ponerization means, still have to read Lobaczewski's book).
So, IMO, to not use some word in translation, which would better convey the original meaning, because this word has been used many times by the Church (or who/what-ever), could poor the translation and deprive depth of the original work from the reader, not to mention the limitation we impose on ourselves when doing this.
Maybe it's better not to assume the reaction of others, but just be fair and honest in our work and do our best when translating things.
As Laura quoted somebody in Amazing Grace, a good translator should allow original author to speak through him, should be a vessel through which author can convey his ideas to people who otherwise would not have had this opportunity.
