What are the differences between the Montenegrins and Serbians?

[t***@gmail.com]

I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity). Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.

Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians? What event in history was instrumental in this split?

[s***@hotmail.com]

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity).  Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians?  What event in history was instrumental in this split?

They aren't different in any perspective. Montenegrins are Serbian.
Their official language is Serbian, their names are Serbian, their
culture is Serbian and their history is Serbian. It's really an enigma
why they want to call themselves after a mountain; Crna Gora (BLack
Mountain)

[e^(ix)]

Then why do they refer to their language as "Montenegrin Language" and
not "Serbian"? As late as the 19th century, they were taught Serbian
grammar.

It seems to me that the Montenegrins feel culturally superior and/or
they are definitely trying to distance themselves from the Serbians
for some reason. I'm trying to figure out what reason.

Could the Montenegrins cultural distancing from the Serbians be
similar to the Canadians and the Americans? Both, Canadians and
Americans speak the exact same English (with only a very minor
difference in accent); both had ancestors from the UK mostly, and
both physically resemble each other very much so. However, Canadians
are Canadians and Americans are Americans. I suppose what
distinguishes us is political, and it has nothing to do with Canadians
thinking that they are better than us or distinct from us.

So I suppose that this is a good analogy.

Post by s***@hotmail.com
They aren't different in any perspective. Montenegrins are Serbian.
Their official language is Serbian, their names are Serbian, their
culture is Serbian and their history is Serbian. It's really an enigma
why they want to call themselves after a mountain; Crna Gora (BLack
Mountain)

[p***@abo.fi]

Post by e^(ix)
Then why do they refer to their language as "Montenegrin Language" and
not "Serbian"? As late as the 19th century, they were taught Serbian
grammar.

Both Montenegrin and Serbian are variants of the language once called
Serbo-Croatian. That being a politically loaded term nowadays, I
prefer to call it Cultured Neo-Shtokavian, because we are here
speaking about written, standardized and cultured language, not about
popular dialect, and because those written forms are all based on the
dialect called Neo-Shtokavian.

In the whole area which uses Neo-Shtokavian variants for literature,
people call the same language different names and exaggerate minute
dialect differences for political reasons.

As languages go, this is not even particularly rare: for example, the
official language of Laos is locally called Laotian, but is no
different from the northern dialect of Thai in Thailand.

[Richard Wordingham]

Post by p***@abo.fi
As languages go, this is not even particularly rare: for example, the
official language of Laos is locally called Laotian, but is no
different from the northern dialect of Thai in Thailand.

I trust that you meant to write 'north-eastern', not 'northern'. The
northern dialect, for all that its speakers were once called the Western
Lao, is historically closer to Siamese than to Lao, being classified with
Siamese in the Chiang Saeng group, as opposed to the Lao-Phutai group to
which Lao and the NE dialects belong.

I'm not sure how much there is in the way of systematic differences between
Lao and the NE dialects, but, for example, _longlian_ (from Siamese
_rongrian_) for 'school' is definitely a form from Thailand - the Lao Lao
form is the regular cognate _honghian_.

Richard.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by e^(ix)
Then why do they refer to their language as "Montenegrin Language" and
not "Serbian"?  As late  as the 19th century, they were taught Serbian
grammar.
It seems to me that the Montenegrins feel culturally superior and/or
they are definitely trying to distance themselves from the Serbians
for some reason.  I'm trying to figure out what reason.
Could the Montenegrins cultural distancing from the Serbians be
similar to the Canadians and the Americans?  Both, Canadians and
Americans speak the exact same English (with only a very minor
difference in accent);  both had ancestors from the UK mostly, and
both physically resemble each other very much so.  However, Canadians
are Canadians and Americans are Americans.  I suppose what
distinguishes us is political, and it has nothing to do with Canadians
thinking that they are better than us or distinct from us.
So I suppose that this is a good analogy.

That is exactly what any linguist would tell you. Please remove this
discussion from sci.lang; linguistics has nothing to contribute to it.

Follow-ups set.

[Dušan Vukotić]

Post by s***@hotmail.com

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity).  Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians?  What event in history was instrumental in this split?

They aren't different in any perspective. Montenegrins are Serbian.
Their official language is Serbian, their names are Serbian, their
culture is Serbian and their history is Serbian. It's really an enigma
why they want to call themselves after a mountain; Crna Gora (BLack
Mountain)

They were promised a better life. It is all "secret" about the making
of Montenegrian "nationality". Of course, all these "deserbisation"
processes are fundamentally instigated/supported by Vatican and some
Western countries (GB especally).

DV

[Bill Schmiade]

Funny isn't it? I would think that people would get beyond all this "remaking" of themeselves over time. Forget about the past and the various "occupiers" and such. Why change you surname to reflect some idea of "nationalism' or for sentimental reasons. This surely does not define who you are. I thought surnames reflected your ancestory. Parents, grandparents etc. Good or bad that is who you are. I change in spelling will not change that. Living in the US, I don't understand all this need for new and/or separate nationalism based on ethnic or religious origins. Not to say at all that we are any better mind you. It seems to me that all this fragmentation does it lead to more problems. Smaller countries are not necessary better. The EU has it figured out. You can still be separate, but you have to work together to accomplish things and for the greater good. Perhaps I am naive, but I get weary of all this fighting and conflict. When will people just learn to move on and get along. No one is better than anyone else. Just different in some ways.. sometimes. > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:43:11 -0700> Subject: Re: What are the differences between the Montenegrins and Serbians?> From: ***@hsc.utah.edu> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com> > Serbian people have no one to blame but themselves. There are few examples> of Serbian people naming themselves after the regions that they have come to> inhabit. For example, Montenegro, which was so named by the Romans.> Macedonia, is another example. I understand that Macedonia is ethnically> diverse. There are Albanians and some Bulgarians there, but it's primarily> Serbian. However, they call themselves Macedonian, which isn't even> accurate. Another example is Bosnia. What are Bosnians? Are they Turks,> are they Serbs, are they an ethnic group of their own? They even have two> "sub groups" of Bosnians, the Muslims and the Bosnian Serbs. It's> interesting that you will find that people in Montenegro, Macedonia and> Bosnia all celebrate "Slava" which is a Serbian custom. I know of some> Muslims in Bosnia who still know that their Slava use to be.> Even in Serbia people separate themselves and make distinction between> people in Srem or Serbia, etc.> If I dare to go even a step further with this and mention the Croatians. We> speak the same language as them, we look the same, we are culturally the> same and yet we call our selves by a different name.> I believe that this is very sad for our people, that we allow outside> entities to divide us and make us into their little puppets. For example,> just like there were power struggles between Rome and Constantinople in the> past, the Croatians and the Serbs inherited that. Then the Turks come and> divided us up even further. Then the communists came and created Macedonia> and a province of Kosovo and divided us up even further. They even made> Serbs in Macedonia change their last name from ....ic to ski. I have> friends where some family members have the Serbian last name and others> family members have changed it to the ....ski ending.> I hope that one day our people abandon other cultures' influences and unite> as one people.> > > > On 1/31/08 8:57 AM, "Dušan Vukotić" <***@gmail.com> wrote:> > > On Jan 31, 7:16 am, ***@hotmail.com wrote:> >> On Jan 31, 4:23 pm, ***@gmail.com wrote:> >> > >>> I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*> >>> similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the> >>> same religion (Orthodox Christianity). Finally, the two ethnic groups> >>> are physically identical.> >> > >>> Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from> >>> Serbians? What event in history was instrumental in this split?> >> > >> They aren't different in any perspective. Montenegrins are Serbian.> >> Their official language is Serbian, their names are Serbian, their> >> culture is Serbian and their history is Serbian. It's really an enigma> >> why they want to call themselves after a mountain; Crna Gora (BLack> >> Mountain)> > > > They were promised a better life. It is all "secret" about the making> > of Montenegrian "nationality". Of course, all these "deserbisation"> > processes are fundamentally instigated/supported by Vatican and some> > Western countries (GB especally).> > > > DV> > > > -------------------------------> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to> > GEN-SLAVIC-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes> > in the subject and the body of the message> > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-SLAVIC-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

[p***@abo.fi]

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity). Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians? What event in history was instrumental in this split?

With the reputation Serbians have these days, it is not too difficult
to see, why anybody who can conjure up an alternative identity should
want to stay Serbian anymore.

More seriously, Montenegro is an old county or duchy or principality
or something, the kind of small principality there were lots of in
medieval Europe - it was not called Montenegro back then though, but
Zeta. (Of course, it is also the model for "Zenda" in Anthony Hope's
"Prisoner of Zenda".) There is still a river called Zeta in
Montenegro. - Well, while other parts of the South Slavic speaking
world were occupied either by Austria-Hungary or by the Turks, this
Zeta somehow survived as a distinct, independent entity (it was a
relatively short time a half-independent province of Turkey though),
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian. This state was ruled by a "vladika", a kind
of prince-cum-bishop.

So, the reason why Montenegro is distinct, is, that it has a long
history as an independent entity. It is a kind of feudal survival from
the Middle Ages, as Luxemburg or Liechtenstein.

[s***@hotmail.com]

Post by p***@abo.fi

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity).  Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians?  What event in history was instrumental in this split?

With the reputation Serbians have these days, it is not too difficult
to see, why anybody who can conjure up an alternative identity should
want to stay Serbian anymore.
More seriously, Montenegro is an old county or duchy or principality
or something, the kind of small principality there were lots of in
medieval Europe - it was not called Montenegro back then though, but
Zeta. (Of course, it is also the model for "Zenda" in Anthony Hope's
"Prisoner of Zenda".) There is still a river called Zeta in
Montenegro. - Well, while other parts of the South Slavic speaking
world were occupied either by Austria-Hungary or by the Turks, this
Zeta somehow survived as a distinct, independent entity (it was a
relatively short time a half-independent province of Turkey though),
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian.  This state was ruled by a "vladika", a kind
of prince-cum-bishop.
So, the reason why Montenegro is distinct, is, that it has a long
history as an independent entity. It is a kind of feudal survival from
the Middle Ages, as Luxemburg or Liechtenstein.

We are here to share information not insult but on the subject; anyone
who has any reason to call themselves Serbian should be honoured.

On the other point you fail to mention that Zeta was established as a
Serbian state together with Raska. Montenegro was never supposed to be
a designated name for the people that lived there but for the terrain,
since Montenegro is mountainous. Throughout history there was no
speculation of whether or not Montenegrins were Serb. Its absurd to
think they are anything but Serb.

[p***@abo.fi]

Post by s***@hotmail.com
On the other point you fail to mention that Zeta was established as a
Serbian state together with Raska.

Yes, there were several medieval states which can be characterized as
ethnically Serbian, and Rashka and Zeta were the most important of
them. However, as far as I remember Zeta was the only one which
survived more or less intact to modern times.

[Wiktor S.]

Post by p***@abo.fi
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian.

I am lazy to find a map ;-) but is there any Black Mountain in the area?

BTW. in Polish the country name is translated: Czarnogóra.

[p***@abo.fi]

Post by Wiktor S.

Post by p***@abo.fi
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian.

I am lazy to find a map ;-) but is there any Black Mountain in the area?

AFAIK there is no mountain so called anymore. Probably it is just a
generic name. Montenegro has lots of rugged highlands.

Post by Wiktor S.
BTW. in Polish the country name is translated: Czarnogóra.

Yes, and so it is in several Balkan languages. In Finnish we call it
Montenegro, though. "Black Mountain" would be "Mustavuori" in Finnish,
if you are curious. The Icelanders also translate it:
"Svartfjallaland".

[Dušan Vukotić]

Post by Wiktor S.

Post by p***@abo.fi
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian.

I am lazy to find a map ;-) but is there any Black Mountain in the area?
BTW. in Polish the country name is translated: Czarnogóra.
--
Azarien

Yes, there is Crna Gora (Black Mountain) also called Skopska Crna
Gora, the mountain range on the border between the Republic of Serbia
and the Republic of Macedonia.

In fact, the all mountainous region in that part of Balkan was called
Black Mountain/s. It is also called Malesija in Serbian (Alb.
Malësia); the name borrowed from Greek Mollosia (Epirus; Greek melas-
oro/s μελας όρος Black Mountain; cf. molloser dogs), which Albanians
calqued as "highlands" (cf. Alb. malësor highlander, mal mountain);

DV

[Dušan Vukotić]

Post by Dušan Vukotić

Post by Wiktor S.

Post by p***@abo.fi
and eventually changed its name into Crna Gora, or the black mountain
- Monte Negro in Italian.

I am lazy to find a map ;-) but is there any Black Mountain in the area?
BTW. in Polish the country name is translated: Czarnogóra.
--
Azarien

Yes, there is Crna Gora (Black Mountain) also called Skopska Crna
Gora, the mountain range on the border between the Republic of Serbia
and the Republic of Macedonia.
In fact, the all mountainous region in that part of Balkan was called
Black Mountain/s. It is also called Malesija in Serbian (Alb.
Malësia); the name borrowed from Greek Mollosia (Epirus; Greek melas-
oro/s μελας όρος Black Mountain; cf. molloser dogs), which Albanians
calqued as "highlands" (cf. Alb. malësor highlander, mal mountain);
DV

Beside Malesija (Greek Black Mountains) there is a mountain called
Prokletije ("Cursed Mountains"; from Serb. proklet cursed); When
compared, Black Mountains (Crna Gora) and Prokletije (Cursed
Mountains) clearly show that life was very hard and full of danger in
that part of the Balkan.

Stefan was right: Crnogorci (Montenegrians) took the name of a
mountain/s (Black Mountains) as their "national" name. Nevertheless,
only about 20% of Serbs in Monte Negro consider themselves as
Montenegrians.

DV

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity).  Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians?  What event in history was instrumental in this split?

Nothing to do with linguistics. Ask at a forum for historians.

[Dragisha Ignjatovic]

Serbian people have no one to blame but themselves. There are few examples
of Serbian people naming themselves after the regions that they have come to
inhabit. For example, Montenegro, which was so named by the Romans.
Macedonia, is another example. I understand that Macedonia is ethnically
diverse. There are Albanians and some Bulgarians there, but it's primarily
Serbian. However, they call themselves Macedonian, which isn't even
accurate. Another example is Bosnia. What are Bosnians? Are they Turks,
are they Serbs, are they an ethnic group of their own? They even have two
"sub groups" of Bosnians, the Muslims and the Bosnian Serbs. It's
interesting that you will find that people in Montenegro, Macedonia and
Bosnia all celebrate "Slava" which is a Serbian custom. I know of some
Muslims in Bosnia who still know that their Slava use to be.
Even in Serbia people separate themselves and make distinction between
people in Srem or Serbia, etc.
If I dare to go even a step further with this and mention the Croatians. We
speak the same language as them, we look the same, we are culturally the
same and yet we call our selves by a different name.
I believe that this is very sad for our people, that we allow outside
entities to divide us and make us into their little puppets. For example,
just like there were power struggles between Rome and Constantinople in the
past, the Croatians and the Serbs inherited that. Then the Turks come and
divided us up even further. Then the communists came and created Macedonia
and a province of Kosovo and divided us up even further. They even made
Serbs in Macedonia change their last name from ....ic to ski. I have
friends where some family members have the Serbian last name and others
family members have changed it to the ....ski ending.
I hope that one day our people abandon other cultures' influences and unite
as one people.

Post by Dušan Vukotić

Post by s***@hotmail.com

Post by t***@gmail.com
I was reading that the "Montenegrin" language appears to be *very*
similar to the Serbian language, and moreover, the two people have the
same religion (Orthodox Christianity).  Finally, the two ethnic groups
are physically identical.
Why do Montenegrins regard themselves as ethnically distinct from
Serbians?  What event in history was instrumental in this split?

They aren't different in any perspective. Montenegrins are Serbian.
Their official language is Serbian, their names are Serbian, their
culture is Serbian and their history is Serbian. It's really an enigma
why they want to call themselves after a mountain; Crna Gora (BLack
Mountain)

They were promised a better life. It is all "secret" about the making
of Montenegrian "nationality". Of course, all these "deserbisation"
processes are fundamentally instigated/supported by Vatican and some
Western countries (GB especally).
DV
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
in the subject and the body of the message