Talk:Asanaginica
| Information about this edition |
|---|
The following template is used to provide information about the source of the transcript. See the {{textinfo}} documentation for guidelines.
{{textinfo
| edition =
| source =
| contributors =
| progress =
| notes =
| proofreaders =
}}
[edit] Reverted page
The edit has been reverted. If a Bosnian variation is necessary, then that may be the case, however, unreferenced & uncommented changes of a controversial nature need to be reverted. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Version from the manuscript of Split. Please, see this http://imoart.hr/portal/etno-bastina/narodna-usmena-knjizevnost/207-strucni-prilozi/265-dr-mate-imundi-asanaginica-od-fortisa-do-mikloia.html and this http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20040806/feljton01.asp (chapter Ikavski and čakavski Split), which explains why ijekavizations appeared. Geert (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This is an example of unacceptable Croatian cultural chauvinism.
The two articles mentioned above give no evidence whatsoever for their argument, and quote sources that are of much later date than Fortis's version; they are also biased towards the alleged Croatian origin of the song (again, without ANY evidence) and against the work of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, one of the greatest Slavic philologists, only because he was Serbian and recorded a Serbian version of the song (the studies also falsely claim that he "translated" it from an inexistent cakavian version).
Everyone can claim that the song was "originally" composed in a different idiom and then "translated" by Fortis or Vuk; but only those two early versions came down to us. There is absolutely no excuse to give preference to some hypothetical version instead of the famous historical edition by Fortis.
Also, the language in Fortis's version is NOT and cannot be Croatian; it is at best Bosnian.
