sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chakavian, Croatian studies, Illyrian (South Slavic), Jakov Mikalja, Josip Hamm, Kajkavian

© 2020 The Author() ST-OPEN © 2020 Croatian books: overview of the history of grammar books on the Croatian Shtokavian literary ARTICLE RESEARCH with an outline of their periodization and classification

Sanda Ham This paper describes the criteria for the systematic period- University of , School of Social ization of Croatian grammar books. These criteria are ex- Sciences and Humanities, Osijek, clusively linguistic and take into account the phonological and morphological structure described in these grammar books; where the grammar books contain a , the lexical organization has been taken into consideration as Correspondence to: Sanda Ham well. Based on these criteria, all Croatian grammar books Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, may be systematized into four periods: I. 1604 – 1836 (old Jagerova 9, Osijek Croatian ), II. 1836 – 1899 (Croatian grammars [email protected] from the Movement to the end of the 19th centu- ry, with two parallel subgroups: grammars by the School and Croatian Vukovians), III. 1899 – 1986 (with three Cite as: Ham, S. Croatian Shtokavian grammar books: successive subgroups: Croatian grammars from the begin- overview of the history of grammar books on ning of the 20th century to 1940, Croatian grammars from the Croatian Shtokavian with 1940 to 1945, Croatian grammars from 1945 to the 1970s), an outline of their periodization and classifica- tion. ST-OPEN. 2020; 1: e2020.2019.24. IV. contemporary Croatian grammars. All these grammars clearly reveal the continuity of the Croatian literary lan- guage. This language is recognizable and comprehensible in all grammars, primarily owing to its Shtokavian styliza- DOI: https://doi.org/10.48188/so.1.10 tion – and not to any kind of “organic basis”.

Introduction

This paper deals with the way Croatian Shtokavian grammar books were classified and grouped based on their synchronicity, which was determined on account of their common linguistic and/or normative features.

Croatian linguistic heritage in the shadow of politics

Comprehensive lists of Croatian grammar books (hereinafter referred to as “CGBs”) are a modern occurrence (Tafra, 1993, 1994, 1995; Ham, 2006, 2008; Marković, 2011). The earli-

1 st-open.unist.hr RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S guage, andthispaperaimstodemonstrate thisfact. books written before the politically-motivated creation of the artificial Serbo-Croatian lan- (Brozović, 1977). Thisisalsosupportedby numerousCroatiangrammar ently shows that Croatian developed independently, so there canbe no talk of any Serbo- research and evaluation. The reason liesin the factthat Croatian tradition transpar - Yugoslav authoritiesdenied the Croatian linguistic tradition and did not encourage its expanded andgrew,state ofYugoslavia (Auburger, culminatingintheformer ). The 2009 est CGBs datebacktotheearly17 common, anationalYugoslav-type language. elements inCroatian,Serbian, Bosnian,andMontenegrin,thisDeclaration calls for the Language Common today, inthepost-Yugoslavlanguage cesspoolwhich spawned the 2016Declarationthe on kinship and push it to thepoint of uniformity. The traces ofthis reasoning stillremain quest for the underlying ofall Shtokavian , in the intention to prove their This basis”was,ofcourse,supposed to betheShtokavian “organic dialect. Therewasa language in terms ofits“organic basis”–while disregarding itsgrammatical standard. Unitarian pressures haveentrenchedthecenturies-oldbad habit of describingtheCroatian “The organic basis”–thepivot ofpolycentric linguisticunitarism but also the broader, national kind) gained momentum in the middle of the 19 language policy and the denial of distinctive Croatian features (notonly the linguistic kind language inSerbian,weakeningThis unitarian thustheCroatiannationalconsciousness. constructed Serbo-Croatianlanguagewasaccepted.ItsroletodrowntheCroatian the Croatian language. The Croatian language was disclaimed and only the politically The unitarian – of which Croatia was a part – denied the distinctiveness of Croatia. ern discovery. For centuries,the Croatian written heritage has been virtually unknown in vlastitim svojim jezikom služe jezikom svojim vlastitim kako Dalamcija sva i Dubrovčani se kojimslovinskoga jezika rieči slovima latinskim dobro titled: book, Croatian known first the is text this Ljubić, after half a and century whole today,a and – book orthographyDžamanjić’s including books, orthography and , books, grammar of list exhaustive an compiled Ljubić od. tive literature, fromitsbeginningtotheearly19 Croatian literary tradition. Back in 1869, he listed and commented on the Croatian norma- wrote freely,an accurateand hisworksrepresent withoutpoliticalpressure, of the record (1869) Ljubić Šime historian Croatian Forthe language. example, our of history the of ing write freely about their language and literary heritage, allowing for a better understand- cords on Croatian linguists and their work from the periods when wereable to untiltheestablishmentofRepublic of Croatia(Ham,2020).We havere- itage; itliesintheunfavorable politicalclimatethathad faced CroatsaswellCroatian of theCroatianlinguisticher- pace ofmodernCroatianlinguisticsisnotinthenegligence Croatian grammar bookstookasmanyfor thelagging asthreehundred years. Thereason exceptionally active and prolific, so it is only reasonable to wonder why the affirmation of (https://jezicinacionalizmi.com/deklaracija). BasedontheShtokavian (1639, reprinted in1991Bamberg),almostlike (1639, amod- th century, andCroatiangrammarians havealways been 2 th century,peri- ortheIllyrianMovement Nauk zapisati th century. It 1977, times (Brozović, betweenCGBshavebeennotedinrecent The linguisticinterrelations boasting adialectalstylization. his viewoftheCroatianliterarybasis”, but languageasalackingan“organic sis”. The renowned Croatian linguist Radoslav Katičić wrote onthisissueand (2008) often the perspectivesonCroatianlanguagebyregard forthe“organicba- theirexcessive if notthe “organic basis”itself.EuropeanNeogrammarians rejected this fact, distorting ment ofaliterarybasis”, the importanceof “organic rejects language, andinthatsense Contrarybasis” theory, tothe“organic thegrammatical normpresupposesthedevelop- 2015). autorstvu described thisdiscussionindetailmy paper entitledKroatistikom– rasprava uzvodno was onthatoccasionpresentedtotheaudience)were,in fact, notgrammar books atall.I ing thatalltheentriesonmylistofCroatianShtokavianandKajkaviangrammars (which was this guiding idea of minethat provoked the Serbian delegation tothe point of profess well asthecommonand shared beginningsofthesestandard languages. Iassume that it as Shtokavian asthecommonlanguageofCroatsandSerbs(BosniaksMontenegrins) theory. By theirveryexistence,theseCroatian Shtokaviangrammars negateany theoryof than the alleged time of appearance of the Croatian language, proposed by the Serbian older centuries half a and two least at were grammars Shtokavian Croatia’s that light to my presentation.Theypulled no punchesintheirattackonmyspeech–becauseitcame hear to assembled Kovačević Miloš linguist Serbian the by led delegation Serbian entire in Ohrid,on10–16September2008(Ham,).Beyondmywildestimagination,the Slavic Congress of thispaperattheInternational I notethatreadanabridgedversion 2014). In this regard, claimed centeredaround (Bojović, sider allolderworkswritteninShtokavianasbelongingtotheSerbs,includingac- arestill known to claim the Shtokavian dialect as exclusivelytheir own. They con- as well. language ofnotonlyCroatsandSerbsbutBosniansMontenegrins common polycentric basis” in the foundation of the Croatian literary languageis the quest for a non-existent an “organic for but theperennialsearch Shtokavian languages, Croatian andSerbianare grammars alsomake upthehistoryofCroatianliterary norm. grammarsThe linksthat make foundedontheirsharedfeatures. up the historyofCroatian erary language based on Croatian grammar books and propose a classification of Croatian In this paper, I wish to touch on the possibility of describing the history ofthe Croatian lit- 1994). Inthissense,wehaveonlyjustscratched thesurfaceofhistoryCGBs. text anditscorrespondingnorm,i..grammar books(Vončina,1975; tainly worthmentioningthemonographsof theliterary that werebuilt on thecorrelation 2003; 1985; , 2005, Stolac, (“The against the Current – A Discussion onAuthorship”) (Ham, Katičić, 1978; Katičić, ), as well as the relations to and literaryto dialects 2006), aswelltherelations works.Itiscer Vince, 1988, 1990; Tafra, 1995a; 3 Gabrić-Bagarić, 2003; Gabrić-Bagarić, Kalenić, 1965; Kalenić, 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 Kolenić, st-open.unist.hr Ham, - -

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S to describetheCroatianlanguageofKrižanić’s time. Hervātí vezdí ráži izrikájut...; Hervâtsku... po velêt..., Hervātí izrikájut..., Hervātí gdi Comments ofthisnatureabound:A and commentedonCroatianonlywhereitdeviatedfromhisPan-Slavicsystem. languages Slavic all from examples grammarwith Pan-Slavic a wrote Križanić indirectly; Križanić’sin language approached Croatian be the grammarto However, needs Croatian. grammar of grammar Croatian second the Kašić’sconsequently is and (1649) after grammar Italian Mikalja’s and (1604) written was grammar This 1665. in Tobolsk in lished grammar Pan-Slavic his in Križanić Jurajby erary-linguistic circle(Vončina,1968). The idiosyncrasies ofthis language weredescribed the ZrinskiandFrankopanaround –hencethename,lit- centered estates Milan Moguš(1984). by reconstructed Križanić’swas grammarof Croatian The the Latinscript(Hamm, 1984 ). written it, in 1848 and 1859, and in Frankfurt in 1976 and 1978. . Hamm transcribed it into had Križanić after centuries two Moscow in published was It centuries. two for unknown the otherhand, has not beenkept aliveby anyone, ashis grammar was inaccessibleand today.grammarbooks in survives still it bymanygrammarians,and Križanić’s legacy, on Ozalj circle. The legacy of the first Croatian grammarian, Bartul Kašić, has been kept alive - the of description grammatical a -Shtokavian literary andlinguistic stylizationasadistinctivelanguageofthe gave Kašić grammar, Pan-Slavic his of framework the Within Kašić. . to owe we stylization linguistic and literary Chakavian The grammaticaland theShtokavian- description oftheCroatiansouth(southeast) Old Croatian Shtokavian grammars stylization nurtured by themenofletters,writersand lexicographers ofthe17 mar ofthelanguageOzaljcircle,three-dialectChakavian-Kajkavian-Shtokavian A special mention should be made of this solitary literary and linguistic attempt – a gram- Križanić’s Pan-Slavic grammar mars aregiveninthe gram- these grammar on by Illyrian data (Bibliographic first Babukić the . to Kašić B. by 1808, Starčević 1812, and I. A. Brlić 1833. This is a span of two centuries, from the first CGB 1728, Tadijanović 1761, Lanosović 1778, Relković 1767, Jurinov 1793, Voltić 1803, Appendini The old Shtokavian CGBs are CGBs written between 1604 and 1836: Kašić 1604, Della Bella that Croats in the 17 the in Croats that declare may we now own... its of grammarian a Križanić, Juraj also but writers own its only not comprised circle literarylinguistic Ozalj and the maythat declare we Now estates... Frankopan and Zrinski the on nurtured was that language the is this that doubt no is there description, Križanić’s meets extent, greatest the to that, language the in written texts Croatian for look and up this sum we “When (Moguš, 1993,p.87). literary complex of the southeast and northwest gained a grammatical description” Box 1 th –ChronologicallistofCroatianShtokavianGrammars). century had two grammars, as the language of the Croatian the of language the as grammars, two had century ifweisolateallthatispo hervatsku (inCroatian),wemay try 4 Gramatično izkazanje ob ruskom jeziku ruskom ob izkazanje Gramatično th century on , pub - on theircontemporaries (Kolenić, 1998). cially as they meet the literary and linguistic guidelines of their time and had an influence sense, theyshould most certainlybementionedamongtheoldCroatiangrammars, espe- study ofthecontemporary Croatianlanguageoftheareawheretheywerewritten.Inthis were Latingrammars, they werewritteninCroatian,sotheymayas abasisfor the serve Other grammars in the vein of Mikalja’s were written and published in the early 18 early the in published Mikalja’sand of written vein were the grammarsin Other fewer ChakavianelementsweencounterinthisShtokavianstylization. only inthe late 19 of itscreation,but it is assumed to be sometime between 1766 and 1770. Itwas discovered 12 small volumes. Itis kept in the Sinj monastery archives. We do not know the exact time Gašpar Vinjalić was the author of the oldest of the three. His grammar spans 273 pages, in handwritten intheShtokavianstylization.Allthreewereauthoredby Franciscans. We knowtoday thatthreeadditional trilingual -Italian-Croatiangrammars were Franciscan grammar manuscripts his literary and linguistic Shtokavian stylization. Thewegettothe18 closer and Kašić of footsteps the in followed Mikalja elements, Chakavian with Shtokavian to Ikavian ShtokavianstylizationofCroatianwith some Chakavian elements. When it comes Jekavian- the in written was grammar consequently,his Dubrovnik; in school grammar Jesuit the at professor a was Mikalja that noted be should It Mikalja’swork. on built ians Italian first the that fact grammar waswritteninCroatianbutalsobecausevariouslexicographers andgrammar- the to due only not grammar Croatian of study the of history slovinskogathe . Thisisimportantfor jezika jezik, asapartofthedictionarytitledBlago latinski naucciti za nauk kratak ili kratho u talianska his Italiangrammar, Grammatika published Mikalja Jakov Loreto, in 1649, In Croatian. in written were they but language, Croatian the of grammars not are Ljubušak and Babić, Mikalja, by books grammar The foreign languageswrittenby Croats–Mikalja,Babić,andLjubušak. century ingrammatical, andespeciallyinlinguisticterms.This is theera ofgrammars of second grammar by DellaBellina,writtenin1728;however,itwasby nomeansadead the and 1604, in Kašić by CGB printed first the between passed had century a than More Old Croatian LatinandItaliangrammars the edition of the document) and Lovro Šitović Ljubušak 1713, of Croatian: by Tome Babić (1712, stylization Shtokavian Ikavian-Jekavian the in written grammars Latin were tury.These The author’s name and title on the cover were a later addition by Fr. Petar Bačić; Bujas’ au- Andrija Bujas, weredeterminedindirectly, as the grammar does notgivethis information. The title, author, and time of writing of the third manuscript, an incomplete grammar by on Visovac. monastery the of archives the in kept is manuscript The it. finishing before 1797 in away passed but 1781, in it writing begun had grammar, second the of author the Bilušić, Mijo plete trilingualgrammar inCroatia. also followed in the footsteps of both Babić and Šitović. It is considered to be the first com- th century. It is a reworking of Álvares’ (1572) Latin grammar, but Vinjalić 2 1745) (Numbersinsuperscriptnexttotheyearindicate 5 2 1742, 3 1781. Althoughthese 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 th century, the st-open.unist.hr th cen-

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S Supradialectal Shtokavian stylization same grammatical model, usingpractically thesamescript. the samesupradialectal stylizationand literary language,describedbased on virtuallythe no needforanyThere is,therefore, CGBs of thesetwocircles. suchdivisions;theyshare the between differences linguistic significant no are there as conditional, is division such Naturally,any Brlić). Starčević, Lanosović, Relković, Tadijanović, Ljubušak, (Babić, circle Bosnian-Slavonian the of grammars the second, the and Appendini) Voltić, Jurin, Bella, Della Mikalja, (Kašić, circle southern Croatian the of grammars the being first the cles: This series ofCGBs in the Shtokavian stylization may be segregated into two smaller cir- Common linguisticfeatures ofoldCroatian Shtokavian grammars it ispartoftheFranciscan manuscripttrio fromthelate18 be established,butbasedonthegrammatical modelandlanguage;wemay concludethat written by Andrija Bujas) and the grammar manuscript. The exact time of writing cannot thorship was establishedby comparinghandwritten letters (reliablyknowntohavebeen of thefollowingperiod, which use auniformspellingaswellsuperscript diacritics. All CGBs use this , drawing a clear dividing line between the old CGBs and the CGBs ian employs asubscript diacritic:Jurinusestheletter grammar one Only diacritics. superscript no with - spelling any old in an reflect they case, grammarthe author, Franciscanthe or on Jesuit Depending the either use books spelling; Spelling is exception The circumflex. and gravis, acute, Starčević’s grammar, whichrecordsafour-accent system. accents: three describe CGBs old All Tree accents keeping withitssupradialectal nature. in so, consistently not though Jekavian, and/or Ikavian either is stylization Štokavian The language as well as dictionaries, this supradialectal permeation of lexisis clearly evident. lexically fromthreedialects;duetothefactthatmostCGBscontainexamplesofspoken The aboveCGBsallsharethesamesupradialectal Shtokavianstylization,which borrowed grammarians. to anolderversionofCroatian as welltheburgeoningworkofCroatianFranciscan these manuscriptsalsobearwitness the developmentoflinguisticnorm.Nevertheless, they were not printed (or completed), they were not in use and could not have influenced grammars,as wellthemanuscriptsofallthree scans, areunavailabletothepublic.As mar based on the digital scans of Vinjalić’s manuscript made in 2013. Unfortunately, these Vinjalić’sof language gramCroatian - the described Kramarić(2020) grammar,while gual Vinjalić’s- trilin described (2018) Kovačić grammars, manuscript Franciscan three the on (1984) andBezina1993, Pezo archives. monastery Visovac the in Latin, CroatianandItalianrespectively.three columns–onefor Themanuscriptiskept (1572) grammar.is divided content into Its Álvares’ of rewriting a is and pages small 284 6 ç, for/č/. th century. The grammar has 1994) wroteatlength kept by thegrammarians oftheZagrebSchool. the Croatian literary language only in the first half of the 19 Old CGBsdonotdescribethedual form; thedual was, asastandardform,introducedinto Dual the IllyrianMovementtoendof19 and going as far as normalizing the potential mood. The CGBs of the second period, from normalizing theconjunctiveandoptative(or,atbest, mergingthesetwomoodsintoone) bygrammar– Latin the and mimickedKašić closely also CGBs old the of system verb The Verb clension ofthedefiniteandindefiniteadjectivalforms. as predicatenominatives.OnlythelastofoldCGBs, written by Brlić,describedthede- noting thatadjectivalpredicatesmay notendin-i, i.e. that definite adjectives may function predicates, nominal in adjectives of use the described who Kašić, echoing distinction, this they domake however, Syntactically, forms. adjectival indefinite and definite between It shouldalsobenotedthattheoldCGBsdid not describeandmorphologicallydistinguish very forefrontoftheCroatianstandardizationprocesses. atthe new suffixes these placing suffixes, plural instrumental old the alongside suffixes new the recorded grammarians most However, syncretized. not are cases plural in fixes case system described in the old CGBs shares another significant common feature: the suf- number of cases as our modern grammars is the last of the old CGBs, written by Brlić. The the to corresponded CGBs same the describe to CGB first Croatian genitive caseprecededbyThe old the preposition od. the in which and grammar Latin from borrowed Kašić which Brlić), and Starčević for (except case ablative the have CGBs old the that fact the in (as its suffix corresponded to the dative suffix in the singular). Kašić’s legacy isalso evident in the singular and plural, resultingfromtheomissionoflocativecasein the singular cases of number unequal the is CGBs old the of A feature Kašić). B. by (established suffix All oldCGBs honor theLatinmodelofclassifyingnounsaccordingtotheirgenitiveplural Word morphologyanddeclension century, inthethirdeditionofWeber’s grammar Slovnicahrvatska. we drawinstead strivetowardacommonspellingsystem;thecloser tothe19 However, itshouldbenotedthatoldCGBs in noway demonstrate spellinganarchy, and as a shared feature. This spelling was finally abandoned only in the second half of the 19 However, the very recordingofthe accompanying vocal with the syllabic may be seen seen as the distinguishing feature separating the southern and Bosnian-Slavonian circles. panying vocal,aseitherarorer.Thechoicebetweentheandspellingisusually syllabic the of spelling the is periods both in spelling the unifies What Vončina, 1969). and theIllyrianera,and moreuniformthespelling(Moguš& this enterprise, thegreater th century, willbethefirsttoescapethismodel. 7 th century by Babukić, and then 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 r with its accom- th century st-open.unist.hr th

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S the ZagrebSchool(Vince,1998). did compose grammar books,but their grammars innoway differedfromthoseof Croatian Vukovians. The and Zadar schools produced no grammars; authorsfrom of grammars the other, the on and School, Philological Zagreb the of grammars the have the boundaries between them merge into one – normative linguistics. On the one side we If welookatthesethreeperiodsonlyfromtheperspectiveofCGB linguistic features, the 19 and theperiodoftriumph 1800s tothe1890s), of theCroatianVukovians (lastdecadeof same mannerfromthe1830s untiltheturnofcentury.we here viewthe Therefore, advocated by the Vukovian CGBs clashed with those of the Zagreb School in the exact there isnopointindividing from thatperspective, them intotwogroups;thesolutions during theIllyrianMovement periodandthroughthesecondhalfof 19 In principle,theZagrebgrammars cultivatedandkept thesamenormativesolutions Grammars oftheZagreb PhilologicalSchool the 19 of end the until lasting and Movement Illyrian the with Philologically,starting period the Croatian grammars from theIllyrianera to theendof19 second period,fromtheIllyrianMovementtoendof19 the of CGBs The Starčević. by written was grammar Croatian-only monolingual, first the bilingual; The oldCGBswerewrittenineitherLatinorItalianGerman.Theyoften Metalanguage andthegrammatical model Another significant feature of the old CGBs had gradually faded away during the 19 the away during gradually faded had CGBs old the of feature significant Another or Italian. written in Croatian; only a few Croatian linguists or grammarians still wrotein German tury, only to completely disappear in the 20 vanished inthe19 This awareness ofa grammar book as an exhaustive language manual had not completely whole bookcouldnotbeprinted,soonlyits reason – it was incomplete.Although it was conceived and written as a complete work,the and neither did it come with a dictionary;it was titledOsnove letters, and conversations of samples contain not did grammar Kašić’s alphabetical. not and communication letters), and (conversations often dictionariesaswell – conceptual, on spelling, phonology, morphology, and syntax) obligatory examples fromoral or written chapters the (besides containing manuals linguistic exhaustive as conceived were Brlić 1830s tothe middle of the 19 snippets anddictionaries–wasBabukić’s Osnovaslovnice riod grammars, and the first CGB to eschew this system – doing away with conversational first-pe- the of feature required and exclusive an is This grammar-writing. of history the in period second the during find rare a were – dictionaries conceptual alone let – naries th th century has habitually been divided into three parts– the Illyrian period (from the century). th century, butgrammarssnippets anddictio- containingconversational th century), the period of philological schools (fromthe mid- 8 basic partsawthelightofday (,1999). th etr – CB fo B Kšć o . A. I. to Kašić B. from CGBs the – century . (“The Basics”)forthat very th century, weremostly th century th century, so th cen- ians ofthe 18 of thebustlingwork ofShtokaviangrammarThe ZagrebSchoolfollowedinthefootsteps - tinctive normativesolutions,whichclearlysetthemapart. to theirtimeorplaceoforigin.Inprinciple,thesetwogroupsexplicitlysubscribeddis- such adivisionistheliterary andlinguisticnormevidentinthesegrammars, asopposed for – criterion only and – decisive VukovianThe and CGBs. School Philological Zagreb the the late 18 predominant IkavianShtokavianlanguagestandardizedintheCGBsduring the Thus, pronunciation. Jekavian the only leaving eventually next, the to grammar one slavjanske . The various pronunciations of therefore gradually waned from slovnice grammar his in Babukić by prescribed as should preferably bepronouncedasje, they purposes), metric for Ijekavian, even (and variant Ekavian or Ikavian, Jekavian, the that, although the reflexes of the Old Slavic yat () – written as recommendation the in evident as book, grammar Zagreb first the in stylized been ready al- had ForShtokavian stylization. Jekavian Shtokavian the the example, modernized still but Kašić’stime, since out mapped path normative the along followed School Zagreb The and normatively, ithadnosetframework (Horvat,1999 that Kašić wrote his grammar when prompted to do so by his order – but methodologically clear and concrete normativesolutionsbased on philological principles. Today, we know with strivings, Pan-Croatian conscious of result a not were CGBs older the School, Zagreb hervatskih); incontrast totheguiding principles ofthe stranah all partsofCroatia(svih in language literary unified a achieve to effort Pan-Croatian conscious the was novel was tradition andsoheralded nonewera inthedevelopmentof the literary language.What lectal stylizationoftheliterary languageisShtokavian;andtheymadenobreakwith the abandoned in themiddle of the19 system wasonly style. Anotherexampleistheaccents–oldShtokavian three-accent fact that the Zagreb grammarians standardized the literary language while being perfectly The betweentheZagreband Vukovianfundamental difference grammar books wasthe Katičić, 2008. literaryof timeandspace,see languageasthecommontoallCroats,regardless the same, and easily On recognizable. the intelligibility and distinctness ofthe Croatian tured some Neo-Stokavian stylizations,but the literary language, in principle, remained that gradually(Tafra,features tookonnovel ; 1995 a Neo-Stokavianstylizationwith old features;rather, itwasanOldStokavianstylization Neo-Shtokavian stylization. The language of the Zagreb Philological School did not start as stylization, the Zagreb School grammarians gradually, step by step, moved towards the period fromtheIllyrianMovementtoendof19 end ofthe19 the historyofCGBs. Grammars compiled in theIllyrianMovementperiodandthrough the the 19 line between them and Croatian Vukovians. From the Illyrian Movementtothe end of dividing a sharp and School Zagreb the of feature a distinctive are suffixes case old The mar. ThiswasadecisivesteptowardsthenewerShtokaviancharacters. th century, by choosingtheolder formsoftheinheritedShtokaviansupradialectal th and early 19 th th and the first half of the 19 the of half first the and century arehencedivided into twoparallel subgroups–thegrammars of th etre gauly salsl sitd no h Jekavian the into shifted seamlessly and gradually centuries th century, and not immediately, in the first Zagreb gram- th century. This meant twothings:their supradia- 9 ). Every new grammarHam, 1998).Every fea- ; Katičić,1999). th century asauniformperiodin ě – may be read in 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 st-open.unist.hr Osnova

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S Oblici srpskog jezika netically,gramatika in 1850 and srpska and morphologically in his grammar books Mala phonologically, Daničić Đ. described by finally pho- was which and it, to attached volume dic- rječnik) in 1818, and systematized grammatically in his short grammar Serbian tionary (Srpski his in lexically recorded Karadžić S. V. that language the on modeled was before thetime of the Croatian Vukovians norduring their time – the common language were consideredtobe one people.Astherehad never beensuchlinguistic unity – neither dictated the kinship of their peoples. Asboth Croats and Serbs were Shtokavians, they advanced by European Neogrammarians: that the genetic relationshipamonglanguages idea scientific contemporary a from started Vukovians the relations, national and litical put it shortly and succinctly, and without going into a detailed analysis of complexpo- Croatian intelligentsia, including some linguists and writers, during the 19 their grammars werelinguistic productsoftheYugoslavidea that saw anupsurgeamong Croatian Vukovians strovetowards creatinga common languageofCroatsand Serbs, and School ofCroatianVukovians wasatthetimeknownasDaničićSchool. Philological The Daničić. and Karadžić of supporters Croatian the mean we Vukovians, Croatian by Daničić; Đ. and Karadžić V.S. by standardized features linguistic and erary A grammar book by the Croatian Vukovians is any CGB prominently featuring the lit- Grammars by theCroatian Vukovians basis, problematized theimportanceandsurvivaloforganic aware that it stood abovelocalvernacularsand dialects, and so nottobe sought there (this ilca bss ak n h tm o B Kšć bsd n h eitn Cota ltrtr – literature Croatian existing the on based Kašić, B. of time the in back basis dialectal Croats, however,this was generally unacceptable, because they settled onthe Shtokavian dialectal basis(notastylization –abasis!)onwhich to modeltheirliterary language;for was anacceptableoption, astheyhad only startedtolookforaliterary andlinguistic naculars totheliterary languageleveland keep thempurely Shtokavian. For Serbs,this the VukoviansStokavian Ijekaviandialectsandvernaculars; to promotethesever- strove The dialectalbasesforthecommonlanguageof CroatsandSerbsweretobetheNeo- mars by mostauthorshadatleasttwoeditions. gram - The Margitaij. J. Parčić, . Vitanović, J. Pierre, Paul Vukovians), Croatian the with Divković, (at first, I. Danilo and . DivkovićM. subscribed to the ZagrebDanilo, norm, but later sided I. V.Pacel, Volarić, . Šutina, J. Stazić, A. Fürholzer, . Ljubački, Rukavina . Veselić,Fröhlich L. tongue: mother Zagreb the towards language literary Croatian the of A. not crucialordecisivein the normative sense,but they did direct the standardization V.Babukić, were grammarians Zagreb Mažuranić, influential and A. Veber; however, there most were many other authors whose grammars were and important most The govore štokavci dobri što kao their principlewas:“SpeakasskillfulShtokavians speak” (Govori Vukovians standardized their literary language by relying on the living and are modern definitions of the 19 the of definitions modern are dardization drewfromthewrittenCroatianShtokaviantradition.efforts Of course,these pišu), astheirstan- pisci dobri što kao principle was:“Writeasskillfulwriterswrite”(Piši ), astheirstandardizationeffortsdrewfromthespoken Shtokavianlanguage. in1864,andsyntactically, inhis th century principles (Skok, 1952; 10 Srbska sintaksain1858. see: Jonke, 1965). Croatian Jonke, Katičić, 2008). Their Katičić, th century. To grammar oftheCroatianandSerbianlanguage. comparative a was work Budmani’s that and Hercegovina; and in Croats the for grammar Vukovian his wrote Vuletić F. that grammarians; Zagreb as emerged Divković apparent scarcity of Croatian Vukovians is only amplified by the fact that I. Danilo and M. Brlić, P. Budmani, I. Danilo, M. Divković, F. Vuletić, Rudolf Strohal, and Tomo Maretić. The Compared to Zagreb grammarians, Croatian Vukovians werefewand far between:A.. reality, aswelldirectedtowardstheNeo-Shtokavian development( abundantly expanded, cultivated, and adapted to theCroatianthree-dialectallinguistic first CGB. By the time of V. S. Karadžić, this Shtokavian language had already been refined, the literarytherefore, andlinguisticShtokavian language oftheCroatsisolderthan Morphology phonetics Phonology and Orthography Spelling Terminology Grammatical model features Grammatical Table 1. The mostpronounced differences betweenthegrammars oftheZagreb SchoolandCroatian Vukovians Case syntax are: Dpl. and instrumentalplural, thenonsyncretic suffixes konj-ah, sel-ah,žen-ah, stvar-ih Genitive plural nounshave the is onlylong:íe,iê. accent: ^,thelongfalling/. The diphthong advocates forthree accents);thelongrising diphthong; thefour-accentsystem(onlyBabukić The yat reflex isaphoneme,monosyllabic the ears. Morphology-based: Write fortheeyes, speakfor ten asie,je;syllabic as ě;syllabic tj, ć=,dj,gjđ;before 1876,theyat waswritten prislov (prilog)... prošlo vrieme,predlog, veznik, uzkličnikorumetak, spol, osobnozaime,glagolj,glagoljnaosoba, slovnica, samostavnik, pridavnik, brojnik, zaime, case, instrumentaltheseventh. the genitive singularsuffix;locative isthesixth Noun declensionsare categorized according to var-im žut-omu suffix withinthesystem):Gsg.žut-oga sion ofpronouns andadjectives (there is noe A regular arrangement ofsuffixes inthedeclen an accusative preposition. singular is The pronoun ona žen-ama, stvar-ima suffixes -ima dative andinstrumental dual,allnounshave the I pl.jelen-i,konj-i,sel-i,žen-ami, stvar-mi Prema andprotiv the form The exactfuture: besidestheform zujuće slike... declension of participles: declension ofparticiples: Present andpastverbal adjectives are aspecial varies: dvaju oba tri,četiri Recommend thedeclensionofnumbers ; Lpl.jelen-ih,konj-ih,sel-ih,žen-ah, stvar-ih The Zagreb PhilologicalSchoolnorm , Lsg.žut-om bit ćukopao jelen-om, konj-em,sel-om,žen-am, st ju ; fornumbers anddviju,dvama , -ama . r asèr;from 1876theyat waswrit- inthepost-accentualaccusative are dative propositions; : jelen-ima,konj-ima,sel-ima, . r as. isalsostandard. , Isg.žut-im prikazujuća slika,prika dva anddvjema andoba,thegender ; indative, locative h suffix:jelen-ah, . budem kopao, , Dsg. . Inthe mimo . 11 dva, - - is - ; the longfallingaccent:^. the four-accentsystem;longrisingaccent:/, accents: disyllabic pronunciation andshort phoneme, butatrophoneme sequence The longreflex ofthe yat isnotadiphthong Phonology-based: Write asyou speak. vrijeme, predlog, savez, usklik,prilog... lična zamjenica,glagol,glagolskolice,pređašnje gramatika, imenica, pridjev, broj, zamjenica,rod, the sixth. gender; locative istheseventh case,instrumental Noun declensionsare categorized according to accompanying reflex asje;thesyllabic long reflex ofthe yat iswrittenas Introduced theletters singular is The pronoun ona preferred): Gsg.žut-oga sion ofpronouns andadjectives (theesuffixis An irregular arrangement ofsuffixes inthedeclen is agenitive preposition. Prema andprotiv No dual. jelen-ima, konj-ima,sel-ima,žena-ama stvar-ima locative andinstrumentalplural syncretic suffixes: jelena-a, konj-a,sel-a,žen-a, stvar-i Genitive plural nounsdonothave the declension of participles. declension ofparticiples. No present andpastverbal adjectives asaspecial No exactfuture: feminine forms: locative andinstrumentalforms,basedonthe and obje,bothgendersshare thesamedative, dva, obatri,četiri Do notrecommend the declensionofthenumbers ome, Isg.žut-im and žut-om The Croatian Vukovians norm je. andžut-ome e. . dvjema, objema bit ćukopao inthepost-accentualaccusative are locative propositions; ; fornumbers Katičić, 1987). 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 đ anddž;no r iswrittenwithoutthe , Lsg.žut-om andžut-og . dva . st-open.unist.hr , the short ije, theshort ; thedative, andoba,dvije tj , Dsg. , onlyć;the andžut- h suffix: i+j+e witha žut-omu mimo ijè, ije; .

-

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S strict unitarianlinguisticpolicyofthetime. betweentheseCGBs individual, and not principal in nature. This is certainly due to the century CGB diverged significantly from the new Shtokavian forms, making the differenc What separatesthe 20 New Croatian grammars –Croatian grammars inthe20 tradition (Tafra, 1995 ). Croatian the with affiliation undisputed their uphold to solutions Zagreb-esque ditional, tra- enough feature also Maretić before grammars Vukovian All innovations. accepting grammars often give double solutions, both upholding the Croatian tradition, as well as tures oftheCroatianlanguageandrudelyinterruptitstradition. Fortheir thatreason, canon onlytotheextentthatwould not deny theunique fea- lowed theKaradžić-Daničić fol- Maretić before Vukovians Croatian Maretić. by that is grammar Vukovian Croatian The onlypurely and ZagrebnormtheirCGBscommonlymixlinguisticfeatures. idols, V. S. Karadžić and Gj. Daničić – they are usually somewhere in between the Vukovian The normative featuresoftheVukovian CGBs are notascompletethoseoftheirvery shown in Croatian ShtokavianstylizationandtheVukovianbasis –are Neo-Shtokavian“organic” The mostimportantdistinguishing between thetwoopposingnorms– features as theirliterary and linguistic expression. Hereisjustoneexample–although a major deviated from thelanguagespokenaccept is that theCroats wouldnever inCroatia totheextent norm that where aspects those in took Croatian Florschütz more it differed. made and solutions norm Maretić’s normative their but Maretić, by prescribed forms Shtokavian new the mimicked – Benešić and Rešetar, Florschütz, by – CGBs new Three in 1937.TheHungarianSlavistMunkácsyalsowrote onein1920. Benešić and 1933, in Dujmušić 1916, in Rešetar 1905, in Florschütz CGBs: new four duced pro- authors Croatian 1940, in period this of end the to 1899 in grammarMaretić’s From were modeledaccordingly. rules and use language the and Maretić’sarchetype, ization. normative the grammarwas ushered theera oftheNeo-Shtokavianstyl- ofNeo-Shtokavianpurism–the“exclusivity” The most important aspect of this period is the consolidation of Maretić’s norm, which also Croatian grammars from the beginningofthe20 The normative solutions of the20 The normativesolutions the CroatianVukovians. mative solutions, as the standardization in the 19 nor- conflicting fundamentally advanced CGBs no therefore, schools; philological posing speak of Maretić’s norm, which took root in Croatia at the beginning of the 20 the of beginning the at Croatia in root took which norm, Maretić’s of speak to justified therefore, is, it grammar; his in byMaretić standardized as forms, Shtokavian Maretić’s solutions were generally modernized and largely Croatianized. However, no 20 books isthegeneral uniformityoftheirnormativesolutions,asthe20 Table 1. th centurygrammars from thepreviousgeneration ofgrammar th centuryCGBsaregenerally modeledonthenew 12 th century ended in a (political) victory of th century tocentury 1940 th century th century hadnoop- th century. th -

jetnik sgramatikom. According toitsyearofpublication, theTežak-Babić grammar (1966) in 1967, and the 1971 grammar bookthat was partof the linguistic guidebook The CGBs of this era were written by Brabec-Hraste-Živković in 1952, Jonke in 1964, Hamm ning ofthenextone– periodoftheYugoslavCGBs. tics. Inanymarks thebegin- case,theyearthatmarksendofoneperiodnecessarily which launched the period of new unitarian bans for the Croatian language and linguis- Yugoslavia, Tito’s of establishment of year the is this However, year. that printed were therefore notmark the beginning of anew era in the study of grammar – nonewCGBs The year1945wasinnoway aturningpoint forthestudyofCroatiangrammar, andshould Croatian grammars from 1945to the1970s views oftheCroatianlanguagehistory. had written, hehad written in the spirit of his time, laden with unitarism and distorted written for highereducational needs, astherewas no time to write anything else; what he had already he what for reached He 1944. in books specialized write to had Jurišić diers, for sol- coursework Education Circularandthelegalprovisiononreducingcollege subperiod – likely due to the speed with which it was written. Under the Ministry of Public preceding the during written works the to akin surprisingly was Jurišić’sgrammar 1992. in only printed was formation noun on manuscript 1948 his 1944; in Jurišić by that was on the “root” orthographyso-called in 1943. The last published grammar from this period based form Croatianized final its gained and Croatia of State Independent the of time the the same year. The work was retitledas followed Florschütz’sgrammar of edition revised somewhat The Serbian). and tionary, butmay,as acomparative broadlyspeaking,alsobeseen grammar ofCroatian jezika (this work was primarily a comparative dic - srpskoga i hrvatskoga između Razlike tookthefirststeptowardsde-Croatizationintheir1940 work, guage. GuberinaandKrstić of theCroatianlan- During theBanovinaofCroatia,politicalwind turned infavor Croatian grammars from 1940to 1945 were short-lived. went as far promoting the Ekavian speech, making them unacceptable to Croats. They Croatia. Thesetextbookswerefullyinthehands of theunitarian language policy–they grammars in 1928, and were in use in schools until the proclamation of the Banovina of Also worthy of notice are Musulin’s grammar textbooks, as they replaced Maretić’s school dictionary appendedtohisgrammar. Croatian-Serbian comparative the or yat long the of pronunciation Jekavian Croatian the on notes his in – approach this breached merely Benešić traditionallyCroatian. was what the CGB history–anera ofnurturingCroatianlinguisticidiosyncrasies andgoingbackto in period new a heralded hand, other the on Benešić, use. and tradition Croatian the of terms in acceptable not is this when even work), scientific of totality the to opposed (as linguistic differences between Croatian and Serbian. His grammar mostly follows Maretić birthed byas wascanonizedatthetime,fromfolklore severalrecognized Vuk.Rešetar one – of Florschütz’s deviation: his examples come mostly from Croatian writers, and not, Hrvatska slovnica Hrvatska 13 (“Croatian Grammar”) during (“Croatian Grammar”) 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 Jezični sav- Jezični st-open.unist.hr

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S the modernmethodologythatwillprevailinCGBsoffollowingperiod. of signs first the are these – structuralist was phonology his and phoneme, the with deals but still a sign of resistanceto the unitarian pressure. Furthermore, Hamm in his grammar stead –denyingthe Croatian language.Thesewerelinguistictidbits, itsfullauthorityover put, which was prescribed by the Novi Sad orthography, and advocated for jedanput Croatian the of spoke he when time the at place in canon linguistic official every and unitarism) was atthetimereveredasmain argument forthepolicyoflinguistic unity – linguistic say Croats that noted Jonke Croatian; distinctly as perceived always feature a – orthography future. the for left be should this – view of today’spoint from given be cannot language literary of contemporary CGBs in thehistoryofCGBs and theirimpact on thedevelopmentof place the of assessment final The changes. normative systematic for advocates phonetics) but also in the normative sense). Itslatestedition (especially its manual on accents and scientific the in only (not place special a holds Grammar Great the CGBs, above the all Of ing questionsofthesurvivalCroatianlanguage werefinallyresolved. press- the when start only could methodology modern for search the – Škarić’sphonetics especially phonology,Brozović’sand formation, word Babić’s syntax, Katičić’sGrammar: step with modern theoreticallinguistic knowledge. This is especially evident in the Great (and more significant deviations from the unified, unitarian norm), these grammars are in gramatika) by the Academy. In addition to normative deviations from previous periods (VelikaGrammar Great the and Institute, the Težak-Babić, by grammars: important such fully applicable today, and we may rightlycallthem modern grammars. Thereare three new edition,inkeepingevery with the modernlinguisticthought andchanges.Theyare mars werewrittentwenty, thirty or evenfortyyearsago,but have beenupdated with The ranks ofmodernCroatian grammars include the grammars in use today: these gram- Contemporary Croatian grammars also belongstothisperiod;however,the15 grammar prescribedthespellingofdbefore Brabec-Hraste-Živkovićthe exhaustive): not is list (the grammars these of each from bits were tobecelebrated.victories the smallest glehold, soeven Herearesomelinguistictid- as this was possible.Unfortunately, there wasverylittleleeway within the Yugoslavstran- far as Maretić, from detour normative and methodological a took period this of CGBs the notwithstanding, – Maretić’sideology with sided the which Agreement, Sad Novi the of wake in intensified especially which – unitarism Yugoslav the of pressure The solutions. outdated, bothintermsofmethodologyandnormative el; however,itwasalreadysorely edition during this period,in1963.Ostensibly, thisgrammar wasstillthenormativemod- final and last its saw It use. in still Maretić’swas grammarCGBs, above the to addition In today, makingthisgrammar, inprinciple,amodernCGB. zà mene,and Serbs, zamène; Hamm’s grammar forwent the Agreement (which Jekavian speech (insteadofIjekavian 14 th š, , č, ć, basedonthe9 č, c, š, edition ofthisgrammaris stillinuse (2005) ); Pavešić denounced the spelling of spelling the denounced Pavešić ); th edition of Boranić’sof edition jedam- in- IV. contemporary Croatiangrammars. 1945, Croatiangrammars from1945tothe1970s; in the late19 that portant tostress no break occurred evenwith the appearance ofCroatian Vukovians ruptions orbreaksin the developmentofCroatianliterary/.Itisim- inter- no been have there – literature Croatian from know we fact the confirm also mars owing toitsShtokavianstylization is recognizableand comprehensible in all CGBs, from theoldesttonewest,primarily All these CGBs clearly reveal the continuity of the Croatian literary language. This language hidden; wearebelatedlydiscoveringandappreciatingit. our linguisticheritagehasremained that havefacedtheCroatianpeopleforcenturies, We havedescribed most ofthesegrammars. Duetotheunfavorable politicalconditions old Croatiangrammars.of rediscovering about sixtyofthem,butwearestillintheprocess grammar. Croatian found first have the we since far, passed So have years 400 than More II. Croatian grammars from the Illyrian Movementtothe end of the 19 I. oldCroatiangrammars (1604–1836); same stylization,CGBsmay bedividedintofourgroups: of the tent ofthisstylizationinacertaintimeand/orspace.Owingtothedifferentextents The mutual differences betweenCGBs and the language they describe arisefromtheex- versa, sincethebeginningofCroatiangrammar studies. tion ofnovelforms.Croatiangrammar haspermeatedtheCroatianliterature, andvice grammars from the beginning of the 20 new CroatiangrammarsIII. subgroups: Croatian with three successive – 1970s) (1899 Vukovians; – 1899), with two parallel subgroups: grammars by the Zagreb School and Croatian the 17 Conclusion Linguistics). 2008, Zagreb:(Reprint: jezikijezikoslovlje/Instituteza hrvatski Institut of Croatian Languageand ,Grammatikakratkotalianska u ilikrataklatinski jezik,Loreto, naukzanaucciti 1649 Zagreb, 2002;Naklada Tusculum, Zagreb –Mostar, 2005. Zagreb, jezikijezikoslovlje/Institute1990; za hrvatski Institut of Croatian LanguageandLinguistics, herausgegeben von ReinholdOlesch,Band21, Böhlau Verlag, Köln, Wien,1977; Most/The Bridge, Forschungen Slavistische (Reprints: 1604 , duo., libri Illyricae linguae Institutiones Kašić, Bartol books followthecommonCroatian tradition. The listalso includes Croatian Latin/ItaliangrammarsBibliographicalwritten. grammarthe for entries Box 1.Chronological listofCroatian Shtokavian grammar th century. ThisShtokavianstylizationhasonlybeenmodernizedwiththeintroduc- th century, sinceCroatian had alreadybeenstylizedin the Shtokavian style in organic basis. Croatiangram –andnottoany- kindoforganic th century to1940, Croatian grammars from 1940to 15 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 th century (1836 st-open.unist.hr

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S Lovro Šitović Ljubušak, Grammatica latini-illyrica, Venice, 1713, Venice, latini-illyrica, Grammatica Ljubušak, Šitović Lovro Koje sloxio Blax Thaddianovich, Magdenburg, 1761, Tropava, jezik, nyemacski i illyrski, u ricsih i immenah, sloxenyekratko illiti mallo Tadijanović,po Blaž Svaschta Dubrovnik, 1808, padre Francescoproffesorescuole pie delle Apependini Maria nel collegio diRagusa, dieloquenza Franjo Marija Appendini (Francesko GrammaticaMaria Appendini), della lingua Illirica compilata dal vom: sve ovo sabrano isloxeno odJoseVoltiggi Istranina). illiricskoga, italianskoga i nimacskoga jezika s’jednom pridpostavlienommgrammatikom ili pismenst - Josip Voltić, Grammatica illirica, Vienna, 1803 (In the dictionary: Ricsoslovnik (Vocabolario, Wörterbuch) napravglena, Mletczi,1793. Venice,izgovoromtalianskim modata, Slovkignai slavnoj– illirickim 1793 slovinskojdiackim mladosti Grammatica(Josephi Giurini), Josip Jurin Illyricae juventuti acco- instruendae sermone latino-Italoque Festtage undanderern Personen versehen, Ofen, 1795. vorzüglichsten dann Würden, weltlichen und geist- hungarischen vornehmsten der Benennung und Briefe, Wörterbuche; deutsch-slavonisch- Gesprächen, verschiedenen mit Anhange nützlichen einem Andrija Bujas,Gramatika late18 latinsko-hrvatsko-talijanska, causa omissadesiderantur continet,manuscript,Visovac, 1781–1797. orationessecunda verosatis estconstructionem, quantum evitandiin prima quae eorum confusionis octoprima divisa,quorum partium in duaspartes dicati suntet adDeoservitum necessaria iisqui multum conscripta idiomate italico et illirico videlicet latino idiomate triplici Grammatica Bilušić, Mijo lingua /Grammatica primainlinguaSlava, ItalianaetLatina,manuscript,Sinj,1766(1770). apprederanoquali serviraItaliana, lalinguaLatinaet nell’istesso tempo apprender ancoangli Italiani per la con Religiosi esser desiderano che Slavi de suo ad grammatica della Principi Vinjalić, Gašpar ica illirica,Dubrovnik, 1873. grammatdella elemetari ilirico.); Principi latino, Dizionarioitaliano, dictionary: the of editions are part Toma Babić,Primagrammaticae institutiopro tyronibus Illiricisaccomodata,Venice, 1712, jeziku, JAZU, Zagreb, 1894). and published in: Sabrana djela Jurja Križanića, knjiga 2, Juraj Križanić Gramatično izkazanje ob ruskom script Latin (Transliteratedinto 1665 Tobolsk,jeziku, ruskom ob izkazanje Gramatično Križanić, Juraj jezikoslovlje/Institute of Croatian Language andLinguistics,Zagreb, 2002). i jezik hrvatski za Institut (Reprint: 1812 Trieste, Lici, u Novog od xupnika Starscevicha Shime janjem nasto- i trudom poklonjena krajicsnoj mladosti vojnicskoj iliricska ricsoslovica Nova Starčević, Šime kleinen versehen,Titularbuche Osijek, 1778, Wörter-und nützlichen einem mit Sprache Gesprächbuche,Anhange verschiedenerauch einem slavonischerund deutscher Slavonischen Briefe einem und zur Einleitung Neue Lanosović, Marijan aia nu Rloi, oa lvnk, nmck gamtk. ee lvnsh ud Deutsche und Slavonische Neue Grammatik, Zagreb, 1767,Vienna, grammatika. nimacska i slavonska, Nova Relković, Antun Matija Ardelio Instruzionigrammaticali DellaBella, della linguaillirica,Venice, 1728, Dubrovnik, – Synopsis). MLADE udruga za istraživanje i proučavanje kulturno-povijesne građe i Synopsis, Zagreb – MH, Ljubuški 2 1828, 3 1848, 4 1850. 2 1774, 3 1789. 16 2 1789; zur slavonischenAnleitung Sprachlehre,sammt th 2 1766. century, manuscript,Visovac. 2 1742, 3 1781 (Reprint: 2005, 1781 Zagreb:(Reprint: 2 2 1785 (Both 1745. - d’impararla, Zadar, 1850; Grammaticaillirica pratica 1855, secondoilmetodoSplit, diAhneOllendorf, bramano che stranieri e nazionali amatori degli uso ad illirica lingua della Grammatica Stazić, Andrija Lavoslav Fürholzer, Horvatsko-slavonska slovnica započetnike, Varaždin, 1847. Trieste, 1843. so wieindenangränedzenDalmatien, Provinzen:und BosniengrammatikalischSerbien Istrien, verfasst, und Slavonien, Kroatien, Köningreiche im Lernende und Lehrer für Leitfaden Ein Rechtshreibung, und Aussprache der Regeln den nebst Formen = Abwandlungs und = Abänderungs Ljubački, Rukavina Ilija eoi Štn, rnii i rmaia liia renk Vcaoi i rm ncsia Zdr 1850, Zadar necessita, prima di Voccaboli rječniku u illirica grammatica di Principi Šutina, Jerolim 1839, Zagreb početnike, za jezika latinskoga i ilirskoga Temelji Mažuranić, Antun Ilirska slovnica, Zagreb, 1854. 1849; – 1846 Drobnića, Josipa rĕčniku malom Ilirsko-nĕmačko-talianskom u – illirica grammatica la 2 2 1846 3 Zara, Frölich, Rodolfo di filologica prefazione una con Babukić Viekoslavo di ortografia nouova la secondo illirica grammatica della Elementi Kaznačić.: Ivan by translation Italian 1839; Wien German year; same the in Zagreb translation in by Rudolf Frölich: Grundzüge title der Illirischen Grammatik, durchaus same mit der neuen Ortographie, the with reprinted 57-60; pp. 15, vol. 53-56; pp. 14, vol. 49-52; pp. 13, vol. 45-48; pp. 12, vol. 41-44; pp. 11, vol. 37-40; pp. 10, vol. 1836, II, ilirska, Danica Babukićem. Věkoslavom uredjena ilirskoga narěčja slavjanske slovnice Osnova Babukić, Vjekoslav Auflage. Agram, 1850. Dritte Berlić. Al. Ignaz von herausgegeben und verfasst Deutsche Für wird. gesprochen der Bosnien,Slavonien,Ländern Serbien, Kroatien Dalmatien, und von in Ungarn und Serben denIlliriern südslawischen den in solche wie Sprache, illirischen der Grammatik 1842; Agram, Auflage, besserte ver- und durchgesehene Zweite Berlić. Al. Ignaz von herausgegeben und verfasst Deutsche Für wird. Kroatien, solche inDalmatien, vonund Serbien, Bosnien, Slawonien, in Ungarn gesprochenIlliriern den wie Sprache illyrischen der Grammatik 1833; Ofen, Berlich, Al. Ignatz von herausgegeben und fasst ver- Teutsche Für wird. gesprochen Ungarn und in Illyriern den von dann c. & Ragusa Serbien, Slavonien, Dalmatien, Bosnien, in solche wie Sprache, illyrischen der Grammatik Brlić, Alojzije Ignjat Serbien, imsüdlichenUngarnundeinem Theile derMilitärgrenze gesprochen wird, 1850, Vienna, Grammatikillirischen Sprache,der Kroatien,wie solcheindalmatien, Bosnien, Slawonien, slavischen vier der Erlernung zur Anleitung 1840; Hauptsprachen, Vienna.1847; Theoretische-praktische Taschen-Grammatikillirischen Sprache,der Beč Illirier, kleine Der Veselić, Fröhlich Rudolf Hèrvatska zagimnazijeirealneHèrvatska škole,DioI:Rĕčoslovje, Zagreb 1859, vn aio Gamtc ilrc, aa, 85 Sonc sena člša iea ea Uei po Uredio reda. nižega učilišta srednja Budmanijevoj. Zadar, 1873. za Slovnica 1855, Zadar, illirica, Grammatica Danilo, Ivan und Kroaten gebräuchlich ist,Wien,1854. Serben der Schrift und Munde im solche wie sprache illyrischen der Grammatik Brlić, TorkvatAndrija Fran Volarić, Ilirskaslovnica započetneučionice, Terst, 1854. 1855, 1861. del- Fondamenti Vežića: Vladislava by translation Italian Sprachlehre, Ilirischen der Grundzüge 1865; 3 1879. 17 2 1861, 3 1866, 3 1861, 4 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 1869. 2 1842; Slovnica 4 1865. st-open.unist.hr 2 1851,

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S lvia èvtk z sena člša Zge, 1871, Zagreb, učilišta, srednja za hèrvatska Slovnica škole isamouke, Osiek,1880, Josip Vitanović, Slovnica hèrvatskoga jezika za nižu realku, Osĕk, 1872; Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za Paul Pierre, Abrégé degrammaire française-croate etdedictionnaire français-croate, Agram, 1868. Pero Budmani,Grammatica dellalinguaserbo-croata (illirica),Vienna,1867. književne , hrvaštine, 1865. Vinko Pacel, Slovnica jezika ili Srbskoga, Hrvatskoga I. diel.Nauka o prieslovu. Zagreb, 1860; Oblici Ivan Brabec, Mate Hraste, Sreten Živković, Gramatika hrvatskoga ili srpskog jezika, Zagreb, 1952, printed inZagrebu in1992. hrvatske slovnice,manuscript of Nacrt Tvorba imenica u povijesnom razvoju was finalized in 1948, and Blaž Jurišić, Nacrt hrvatske slovice, I. Glasovi i oblici u poviestnom razvoju, Zagreb, 1944, Zagreb, razvoju, poviestnom u oblici i Glasovi I. slovice, hrvatske Nacrt Jurišić, Blaž Grammaire delalangueSerbo-Croate, Paris 1877, Milan Rešetar, Elementar-Grammatik derkroatischen (serbichen)Sprache, Zagreb, 1916, Gramatika ilisrpskogaknjiževnog hrvatskoga jezika,Zagreb, Zagreb, rgtn ačć Gamtc dla iga lv (liia, aa, 1873, Zadar, (illirica), slava lingua della Grammatica Parčić, Dragutin 11 13 3 Adolfo Veber Tkalčević, Skladnjailirskogajezikazasrednja učilišta,Vienna,1859, 3 Hrvatska sintaksa za školu,Zagreb,Hrvatska Tomo Maretić, Gramatika i stilistika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga književnog jezika, Zagreb, 1899, Zagreb, jezika, književnog srpskoga ili hrvatskoga stilistika i Gramatika Maretić, Tomo 1890. , oblicima, i glasovima o Nauka škole, srednje za jezika bosanskoga Gramatika Vuletić,Frane Rudolf Strohal, slovnica Hrvatska zasrednje inalike imškole,, 1893. József Margitai, Nyelvtan, Horvát Nagy-Kanizsa,1884. srpskoga jezikazasrednje isličneškole,Zagreb, Liber Croaticus Verlag, Mainz, 1940; Zagreb, jezika, književnog srpskoga i hrvatskoga između Razlike Krstić, Kruno i Guberina Petar “Bibljoteka Polska” (The author’s nameonthecovers spelled as:JuljuszBenešić). Warszava,Wydawniczyserbskiego, Instytut czyli 1937, Gramatyka chorwackiego Benešić, jezyka Julije Jozo Dujmušić,Repetitorij hrvatske slovnice, Zagreb, 1933. ik Dvoi, rase rmtk I do Olc. Zge 17; bii rasoa eia a srednje škole, Zagreb, za jezika hrvatskoga Oblici 1879; Zagreb Oblici., dio. I. gramatike Hrvatske Divković, Mirko 1905, Zagreb škole, pučke više i preparandije licej, ženski za jezika hrvatskoga Gramatika Florschütz, Josip 1966, 1885, 1908, 1917; jezika Oblici isintaksa za srednjehrvatskoga škole, Zagreb, 2 4 1907, 4 12 1970. 1888, 3 1876. 1917. 3 1916 5 2 82 Rčnc z šou Zagreb, školu, za Rečenica 1892; 1887, 7 2002 (the 2002 edition is the reprint ofthe1916 edition); Gramatika ili hrvatskoga 3 1890, 4 1894, 2 2 1882, 1977; Part 1.publishedinJezik,year 44,vol. 5,1977,pp.162-191. 1977; Part 5 1895; Hrvatske gramatike II.dio.Sintaksa za školu.,Zagreb, 1881; 2 3 1889, 1888, 18 3 4 1893, 1891. 4 1940; Hrvatska slovnica, Zagreb, 4 2 6 1896; Nauka oizreci zaškolu,Zagreb,1880, 1904. 1895, 2 83 Sonc hvtk z sena učilišta, srednja za hrvatska Slovnica 1873; 7 1898, 3 1963. 8 1899, 6 1897, 9 1901, 7 2 1898, 1878, French translation: 10 1907, 8 2 1899, 1862. 5 1941, 11 2 9 1911, 1922. 1900, 6 1943. 2 1992; The 10 12 2 2 2 1931; 1903, 1914, 1881, 1954, upon requestfromthecorrespondingauthor),anddeclares noconflictsofinterest. Competing interests: Authorship declaration: SHisthesoleauthorofstudy. or not-for-profitsectors. Funding: Sanda Ham ORCID Received: Peer review: deposited intheDABAR repository(https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:142:254660 Provenance: Stjepan Babić, Tvorba književnom riječiuhrvatskom jeziku,Zagreb, 1986, Zagreb, knjiga, obrazovanje,Školska jezično osnovno za Priručnik – jezika hrvatskoga Gramatika publication); London; reprintanother oftheLondon edition was with no publisher details,yearmade, and place of Školska knjiga, Zagreb,1966, škole, druge i osnovne za jezika hrvatskosrpskog gramatike Pregled Babić, Stjepan – Težak Stjepko jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, Zagreb, 2007. Stjepan Babić, Dalibor Brozović, Ivo Škarić, Stjepko Težak, Glasovi i oblici hrvatskoga književnog jezika, jeziku, književnom Zagreb, 2007. hrvatskome u Naglasak Grasselli-Vukušić, Marija Zoričić, Ivan Vukušić, Stjepan Josip Silić–Ivo Pranjković, Gramatika jezikazagimnazijeivisokaučilišta,Zagreb, hrvatskoga 2005. Sanda Ham,Školskagramatika jezika,Zagreb, hrvatskoga 2002. Dragutin Raguž,Praktična gramatika, hrvatska Zagreb, 1997. gled, glasovi književnog ioblicihrvatskoga jezika,Zagreb, 1991. Težak,Stjepko prePovijesni- Škarić, IvoPavešić, Slavko Moguš, Brozović,Milan Dalibor Babić, Stjepan Radoslav književnog Katičić,Sintaksahrvatskoga jezika,Zagreb, 1986, ka, jezi- književnog hrvatskoga Gramatika 1979; Zagreb, jezika, književnog hrvatskoga gramatika Priručna Znika, Marija Zečević, Vesna Peti, Mirko Pavešić, Slavko Malić, Dragica Lončarić, Mijo Barić, Eugenija Slavko Pavešić iZlatkoVince,Gramatika; Jezičnisavjetnik sgramatikom, Zagreb, 1971. ,Kratka gramatika književnog hrvatskosrpskog jezikazastrance, Zagreb, 1967. 2 1990; Hrvatska gramatika, 7 This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in public, commercial public, in agency funding any from grant specific no received research This 1992, 6 June2020/ Externally peerreviewed. Submitted. paper byThis isanextended version ofaconference Sanda Ham (2008), http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8236-5892 8 1992, 9 The author completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available form Interest Competing Unified ICMJE the completed author The 1994, Accepted: 10 1995, 3 6 2 1995, 1973 (In 1974, a phototype reprint was published by Nova Hrvatska in Hrvatska Nova by published was reprint phototype a 1974, (In 1973 1969, 7 December2020/Publishedonline: 11 1996, 4 3 2003. 1970, 12 2000, 4 1971, 13 2003, 5 92 Peld rmtk hvtkg književnog hrvatskoga gramatike Pregled 1972; 19 14 2004. 2 1991, 2 1991, 17 December2020. 3 2002. 3 ). 2002. 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 st-open.unist.hr

RESEARCH ARTICLE RESEARCH ARTICLE st-open.unist.hr Ham S Katičić, R. (1978). O početku novoštokavskoga hrvatskoga jezičnog standarda, o njegovu položaju njegovu o standarda, jezičnog hrvatskoga novoštokavskoga početku O (1978). R. Katičić, (1965). V. Kalenić, Jonke, Lj.(1965).Književnijezikuteorijiipraksi. Zagreb,Croatia:Znanje. jezikoslovlja. Zagreb,Croatia:Faculty ofCroatian hrvatskog otac - Kašić Horvat, V. (1999).Bartol Hamm, J. (1984). Kovačić, V. (2018). Trojezična gramatika fra Gašpara Vinjalića: struktura i usporedba. N. Lanović, Lj. Kolenić, Lj. (2003). Kolenić, Lj.(1998).Riječoriječima.Osijek,Croatia:OsijekFaculty ofEducation. Katičić, R.(2008).Deklaracija ijezikoslovlje. Jezik,55(1),1-11. Katičić, R.(1999).Nakroatističkimraskrižjima. Zagreb,Croatia:Faculty ofCroatianStudies. Katičić, R.(1987).VukStefanovićKaradžić iknjiževnijezikuHrvata. Ham, S. (2020). Croatian language. In M. Marušić (Ed.), Ham, S.(2015).Kroatistikom uzvodno–rasprava oautorstvu.Kolo a, . 20) Hvtk gaaie Bradn Ptoi i ak Smržj (ed.), Samardžija Marko i Petrović Bernardina gramatike. Hrvatske (2008). S. Ham, Ham, S.(2006).Povijesthrvatskihgramatika. Zagreb,Croatia:Globus. Ham, S.(1998).Jezikzagrebačke filološke škole rmrć M (00. rlg sržvnu rase atvie uoin gaaie rnii della Principi gramatike rukopisne sastavnice hrvatske istraživanju Prilog (2020). M. Kramarić, Marković, I.(2011).Hrvatske gramatike . Retrievedfromhttp://www.hrvatskiplus.org . Ljubić, Š. (1869). arćBgrć D (03. ei u rmtkm jži hvtkh rsoa 7 i 8 st. 18. i 17. prostora hrvatskih južnih gramatikama u Jezik (2003). D. Gabrić-Bagarić, stoljeće. 20. u 19. iz prijelazu na Hrvatskoj u previranja pravopisna i Jezična (1985). D. Brozović, Brozović, D. (1977). O suvremenoj morfološkoj normi jezičnog standarda i o morfološkim značajkama Bojović, Z.(2014).Istorijadubrovačke književnosti References Ham, S.(1994). P.(1994). Bezina, (1993). P. Bezina, serbokroatizam i jezik Auburger, L.(2009). Hrvatski Álvares, M.(1527). pvjsi rasoa nieng eia u jln sadrn novoštokavštine. standardne cjelini u i jezika književnog hrvatskoga povijesti u : LjubljanaFaculty ofArts. Studies. Zagreb, Croatia:JAZU,volume2. (pp. 79-134).NewYork, NewYork, USA: NovaPublishers. akademiku Augustu Kovačecu o njegovu 80. rođendanu (Eds.), P.Šoštarić Musulin, S. M. Radosavljević, Maslina, and SocialSciences. 1978(8), 165-180. Zagreb, Croatia:HFD. kongres (pp.187-202). slavistički međunarodni XI. za sudionica i sudionika hrvatskih Referati Humanities andSocialSciences. rmaia .. gamtc pia n iga lv, tlaa t aia apr Vinjalića. Gašpara latina et italiana slava, lingua in Filologija prima grammatica [...] grammatica Croatia. Instituta zahrvatskijezikijezikoslovlje Jezik, (33)1,1-15. standardne štokavštineuopće.Jezik,(24)1,1-13;24(2)41-50. Kršćanska sadašnjost. Kršćanska sadašnjost. Society. , 2020(74),17-48. Jezik Josipa Kozarca . Manuscriptdoctoral thesis,Zagreb,Croatia:ZagrebFacultyJosipa of Jezik Juraj Križanić, Gramatično izkazanje ob ruskom jeziku, Sabrana djela Jurja Križanića Ogledalo književne poviesti jugoslavjanske na podučavanje mladeži, Knjiga II. Rijeka, Kulturni djelatnici Franjevačke provincije presvetoga Otkupitelja presvetoga provincije Franjevačke djelatnici Kulturni uoin bšia rneaa rvnie rseoa Otkupitelja presvetoga Provincije franjevaca baština Rukopisna Pogled u strukturu hrvatske gramatike. Osijek, Croatia: Osijek Faculty of Humanities De InstitutioneGrammatica LibriTres.Lisbon,Portugal. ei i menči za Agsa eo. aucit otrl thesis.Ljubljana, doctoral Manuscript Šenoe. Augusta izraz umjetnički i Jezik 20 , 29(1),65–86. . Osijek,Croatia:MH. . , :Serbian Literary Cooperative. . Rijeka, Croatia: Maveda, Croatian Philological Croatian Maveda, Croatia: Rijeka, . Croatia: Past, present and future perspectives . (pp. 303–317). Zagreb, Croatia: FF press. Poglavlja iz romanske filologije: u čast u filologije: romanske iz Poglavlja , 2015(3),172-200. Jezik, 35(2),38-48. . Zagreb, Croatia: . Zagreb, Croatia: ijt Ohrid, Vidjeti Filologija Rasprave . , kvc u raso jzčo pvjsi sdia kvc u raso psnj iei – riječi pisanoj hrvatskoj u ikavice sudbina povijesti: jezičnoj hrvatskoj u Vince, Z. (1998). Ikavica Vince, Z.(1990).Putovimahrvatskoga književnogjezika Vončina, J.(1975).JezikAntunaKanižlića.RadJAZU368.Zagreb,Croatia:JAZU. Vončina, J. (1968). Ozaljski jezično-književni krug. Vince, Z. (1988). Pregled hrvatskih gramatika u drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća. Tafra, B. (1995a). Obilježja hrvatske gramatičke norme do kraja 19. st. 19. kraja do norme gramatičke hrvatske Obilježja (1995a). B. Tafra, Tafra, B.(1995).Jezikoslovna razdvojba Tafra, B. (1994). O hrvatskim vukovcima iz drugoga kuta. Tafra, B.(1993).Gramatika uHrvataiVjekoslav Babukić.Zagreb,Croatia:MH. (Eds.), Pranjković I. & Samardžija M. stoljeću. 20. u gramatikologija Hrvatska (2006). D. Stolac, Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezik hrvatski za Instituta Stolac, D.(2005).Sintaksau hrvatskim gramatikama u 20. st.Rasprave Skok, P. (1952).Ojezičnojkulturi. st. XVIII. u gramatika latinskih pisci Otkupitelja presvetoga Provincije Franjevci (1984). B. Pezo, Moguš, M. (2003). Hrvatske gramatike XVII. i XVIII. stoljeća. Ivan Golub (Ed.), Golub Ivan stoljeća. XVIII. i XVII. gramatike Hrvatske (2003). M. Moguš, Moguš, M.(1993).Povijesthrvatskoga književnogajezika Moguš, M.,Vončina, J.(1969).LatinicauHrvata. Moguš, M.(1984).Križanićevahrvatskagramatika. Zadarsko-dalmatinski jezično-kulturnikrug filologiju ilingvistiku 354. 363-378. Hrvatski jezikuXX.stoljeću(pp.297-320).Zagreb,Croatia:MH. jezikoslovlje Kačić, 16,59-81. (pp. 473-483).Zagreb,Croatia:HAZU,Školska knjiga. , 31(1),249-276. XXXI/2,NoviSad,Serbia:MS. Jezik, (1)1,3-10. . Zagreb,Croatia:MH. . Zagreb,Croatia:MH. Radovi Zavodazaslavenskufilologiju, Radovi zavoda za slavensku filologiju Radovi Zavodazaslavenskufilologiju 21 . Zagreb,Croatia:MH. . Zagreb,Croatia:Globus. Rasprave zavoda za hrvatski jezik, 19(1), hrvatski za zavoda Rasprave Filologija Zbornik Matice srpske za Hrvatska i Europa 3 Europa i Hrvatska 2020 Vol. 1•e2020.2019.24 , 1995(24-25), 349- , 1995(24-25), 11,61-81, , 10,195-205. , 19,1-96. st-open.unist.hr

RESEARCH ARTICLE