SERBO-CROATIAN OR
SERBIAN AND CROATIAN? CONSIDERATIONS ON THE CROATIAN DECLARATION AND SERBIAN
PROPOSAL OF MARCH 1967
CHRISTOPHER SPALATIN
While Croatians and
Serbs normally and naturally refer to their standard languages as Croatian
respectively Serbian, various political authorities, especially during the last
fifty years or so, have been trying to impose on their language a different
name as an expression of the existing political situation. Between the two
World Wars, during Royal Yugoslavia, the standard language for Croatians and
Serbs was officially called Serbo-Croatian, at times even Serbocroatianslovenian.
During World War II the Ustasha regime in Croatia recognized only the existence
of a Croatian language different from the Serbian.
After World War II the Communist
regime, in an effort to stress the unity of Croatians and Serbs, and at the
same time, to meet their national aspirations, proclaimed the oneness of their
linguistic expression but gave it two compound names: Croatians were to call
their language Croatoserbian and Serbs, Serbocroatian. The fact is that Serbs
understand Croatians and vice versa, but each one of these peoples speaks and
writes its own national brand or variant of the language. Following the
terminology of F. de Saussure, we may say that Serbs and Croatians have one
tongue, one language-system (in French langue) referred to abroad ( ! ) as
Serbo-Croatian, but two national speeches (in French parole), referred to in
Serbia ( !) as Serbian and in Croatia ( !) as Croatian literary languages (or
lately, standard languages).
While de Saussure
distinguishes a linguistic system (tongue) as existing in a certain community
from its use by each individual in that community (parole), we are applying
that terminology to Croatians and Serbs, two different national groups who are
using the same linguistic system. We may then say that the Croatians and Serbs
have one tongue and two speeches, one common language (narodni jezik) and two standard languages (književni jezik).
Mario Pei and Frank
Gaynor give the following definition of a standard language in their Dictionary
of Linguistics: "The dialect of a language which has gained literary and
cultural supremacy over the other dialects and is accepted by the speakers of
the other dialects as the most proper form of that language."
The Serbians
recognize the literary and cultural supremacy of Belgrade, their national
center, and use the Cyrillic alphabet, the Ekavian dialect, and an important
stock of words peculiar to their variant of the language. The Croatians
recognize the supremacy of Zagreb, their national center, and use the Latin
script, the Ijekavian dialect and an important stock of words peculiar to their
variant of the language.
There is no common
literary and cultural center recognized by both Croatians and Serbs, although
some Croatians may politically accept Belgrade as the administrative center of
a federal Yugoslavia. This attitude is so clearly felt in the mind and usage of
Croatian and Serbian speakers that every impartial observer can notice it. This
is why we stated that each of the two nations or nationalities has its own
standard or literary language, one called Croatian and the other Serbian.
In a case like this
the political situation may greatly influence the linguistic development. The
insistence on linguistic differences or similarities may weaken or strengthen
the political rapprochement of these two South Slavic nations that are
territorially so intermixed. In the last fifty years, politicians, aware of
that significant interdependence, tried to use the language for political
purposes.
In December 1954, Matica
Srpska called a meeting of Serbian and Croatian writers and linguists to cement
Yugoslav "brotherhood and unity." The Novi Sad Resolutions were the
result of that meeting. At that time there was very little freedom in Yugoslavia,
so that the Resolutions were passed without any serious opposition. To raise
one's voice even for a legitimate expression of Croatian or Serbian national
feeling would have meant to lose one's job and to indulge in Un-Yugoslav activities.
The first of the ten
points drawn up in Novi Sad states that the Serbs, Croatians and Montenegrins
have one national (narodni) language
and therefore (sic) also one literary (književni)
language. The second point prescribes the use of two adjectives in the name of
the language to show its composite nature: the language will be referred to as
Serbocroatian or Croatoserbian.
The remaining eight
points deal with the differences between the two variants and suggest ways to
diminish their divisive character. Even in admitting the existence of the two
variants, politicians were interested in stressing the oneness of the language
and the duality of the name. The Orthography of the Croatoserbian Literary
Language by Matica Hrvatska in Zagreb and the Orthography of the Serbocroatian
Literary Language by Matica Srpska in Novi Sad, both published in 1960, contain
both variants and make it possible for Serbian and Croatian speakers to use the
variant of their choice.
Thus the Novi Sad
Resolutions achieved the desired political effect of unity, but imposed a
cumbersome language name and left individuals free to use the variant of their
choice. But who in reality enjoyed genuine freedom of choice? Since in a
multinational country like Yugoslavia (Serbs, Croatians, Montenegrins,
Macedonians and Slovenes) there are a good number of common affairs, the
Slovenes will communicate with the central government in Slovenian, the Macedonians
in Macedonian. How about the Serbs, Croatians and Montenegrins? In Serbian or
in Croatian?
The Novi Sad
Resolutions were not too clear on this point, and a practical point of view
prevailed: there is no sense in using two utterances for one ( ! ) language.
Since the capital of the Yugoslav federation was at the same time the capital
of the Republic of Serbia, the Serbian variant of the language was used in the federal
administration apparatus and in mass communications. Thus Croatians had to read
the Serbian language or listen to it in the federal press, the dispatches of
the official news agency Tanjug, the nationwide radio and TV broad-casts, the
post office, telegraph and telephone service, rail-roads, federal political and
economic publications, newsreels, various administrative formularies, the armed
forces, diplomacy and central Party organizations.
This practice went on
from the “liberation” day in 1945, to the meeting in Novi Sad (1954), and up to
the publication of the unified orthography (1960), and after. As a result the
Croatians felt that their language was degraded to the status of a local
dialect while the Serbian standard language became a sort of “state language.” A
collective Croatian reaction against such de facto Serbian imposition came on
March 15 1961. On that day the following Declaration was accepted:
DECLARATION CONCERNING THE NAME AND THE POSITION OF
THE CROATIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
The centuries-long
struggle of the Yugoslav peoples for national freedom and social justice culminated
in the revolutionary transformation that took place in the period between 1941
and 1945. The victory of the national liberation struggle and the socialist
revolution made it possible for all nations and minorities in Yugoslavia to
enter a new phase of their historical existence.
Basing themselves on
the fundamental principles of socialism concerning the right of every
individual to be free from oppression, and of every nation to be completely
sovereign and equal with all other nations, the Slovenes, Croatians, Serbs,
Montenegrins and Macedonians formed a federal union, consisting of six
socialist republic, to guarantee their mutual equality, brotherhood and
socialist cooperation.
The principle of
national sovereignty and complete equality encompasses the right of each of our
nations to protect all the attributes of its national identity and to fully
develop not only its economy but also its culture. Among these attributes, the
national name of the language spoken by the Croatian nation is of paramount
importance, because it is the inalienable right of every people to call its
language by its own national name, irrespective of whether in a philological
sense this language is shared in its entirety or through a separate variant by
another people.
The agreement reached
in Novi Sad correctly states that the Serbian and the Croatian literary
languages have a common linguistic basis while it did not deny the historical,
cultural, national and political truth that every nation has the right to use
its own-language to express its national and cultural identity. Those
principles are formulated both in the Constitution which is the leader of our
peoples in their revolutionary struggle.
And yet, despite the
clarity of these fundamental principles, a certain fuzziness in their
formulations has made it possible in practice to circumvent, distort, and
violate these principles within the broader distortions of our social and
economic reality. The circumstances under which statism, unitarism, and
hegemony have been revived are well known. With them the concept that a single
"state language" is necessary has appeared, which in practice means
the Serbian literary language because of the dominant influence exercised by
the administrative center of our federation.
Despite the VIII
Congress, the recent IV and the V Plenums of the Central Committee of the
League of Yugoslav Communists, which have stressed the importance of the
Socialist principles concerning the equality of our peoples and consequently,
their languages, the "state language" is even today being systematically
imposed, with the result that the Croatian literary language is disregarded and
is reduced to the status of a local dialect.
This discrimination
is practiced through the administrative apparatus and the means of mass communications
the federal press, Tanjug [Yugoslav official press agency], the Yugoslav
television and radio network in its nationwide broadcasts, the post office, the
telegraph and telephone services, the railroads, the literature dealing with
political and economic matters, the motion picture newsreels, and various
administrative forms, also through the use of the language in the Yugoslav
army, the federal administration, the legislature, diplomacy and various
political organizations.
The momentous economic
and social reforms currently being implemented, which express the principle of
socialist self-management, compel us to take all the necessary steps so that in
the areas of our own competence—linguistics, literature, science and culture in
general—the above mentioned principles of our socialist society are implemented
in daily practice.
Consequently, the
Croatian cultural and scientific institutes and organizations which are the
signatories of this declaration, consider it is essential to undertake the
following steps:
1) To establish
clearly and unequivocally through Constitutional provision the equality of the
four literary languages: the Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian.
For that purpose
paragraph 131 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should
be changed to read as follows:
"Federal laws
and other general official acts of the federal administration are officially
published in the four literary languages of the peoples of Yugoslavia: Serbian,
Croatian, Slovenian, and Macedonian. In their official communications the
federal administration upholds the equality of the languages of all the
Yugoslav peoples."
It is similarly
necessary to guarantee by law the rights of the languages used by the national
minorities in Yugoslavia.
The present fuzzy
Constitutional provision concerning the "Serbocroatian or Croatoserbian
language" makes it possible to consider the two parallel names as
synonyms. As a result the present Constitutional formulation does not offer the
legal underpinning for the equality of the Croatian and the Serbian literary
languages in relation to each other, and also in relationship to the Yugoslav
peoples. This lack of clarity makes it possible to impose the Serbian literary
language as the common language of both the Serbs and the Croatians. Numerous
examples show that this is indeed the practice, as for instance the recent
decisions of the Fifth Assembly of the Union of Yugoslav Composers; they were
published simultaneously in the Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian languages as
if the Croatian literary language does not even exist or as if it is identical
with the Serbian literary language.
The undersigned
institutes and organizations consider that in such instances the Croatian nation
is not represented and is denied equality. This sort of practice can never be
justified by asserting the undeniable scientific fact that the Croatian and the
Serbian literary languages have the same linguistic basis.
2) In accordance with
the above demand and elaboration, it is necessary to guarantee the consistent
use of the Croatian literary language in the schools, the press, the public and
political forums, on radio and the television networks whenever the broadcasts
are directed to a Croatian audience. Officials, teachers and public workers,
irrespective of their origin, should use in their official dealings the
language of the milieu in which they live.
We are submitting
this Declaration to the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, to the
Federal Parliament of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and to the
public at large so that during the discussions concerning the modification of
the Constitution these principles be clearly formulated and put into practice
in our public life.
Matica
Hrvatska
Writers'
Association of Croatia
Pen
Club, Croatian Center
Croatian
Philological Society
Department
of Philology, The Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (Y.A.S.A.)
Department
of Contemporary Literature, Y.A.S.A.
Linguistic
Institute, Y.A.S.A.
The
Institute for Literature and Theatrical Arts, Y.A.S.A.
Chair
for Contemporary Croatoserbian Language, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zadar
Chair
for Contemporary Croatoserbian Language, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb
Chair
for History of Croatian Language and Dialects, The Faculty of Philosophy,
Zagreb
Chair
for Early Croatian Literature, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zadar
Chair
for Early Croatian Literature, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb
Chair
for Modern Croatian Literature, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zadar
Chair
for Modern Croatian Literature, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb
The
Institute for Linguistics, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb
The
Institute for the Theory of Literature, The Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb
Old
Slavonic Institute, Zagreb
Association
of the Literary Translators of Croatia [1]
The nineteen[2]
Croatian scholarly institutions and cultural organizations were represented by
140 signatories including the famous author Miroslav Krleža and other foremost
Croatian writers and linguists. In the Declaration they ask for an amendment to
the Constitution expressing two things:
(1) the equality not
of three but of four literary languages, the Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and
Macedonian, and consequently, the publication of all federal laws and other
federal acts in four instead of three languages;
(2) the use of the
Croatian standard language in schools and all mass communication media
pertaining to the Republic of Croatia. It seems to us that this Declaration has
put the linguistic reality in the right perspective by acknowledging the
existence of two literary languages even in a unified country and thus
separating language from politics.
The leading Croatian
linguists and authors stated that the Croatian nation has its own standard
language different from the Serbian standard language, that they want their
language to be used in Croatian public life as the official means of
expression, that they reject any other name for it except the Croatian
language.
The Declaration in
its lengthy introduction fully admits the existing political situation so that
politicians would not see a political implication in this request for equality.
In the concluding paragraph the signers submit democratically their opinion to
the legally constituted authorities.
The Declaration did
not provoke any linguistic discussion but it unlatched a deluge of political
protests, and this only after a prompt condemnation by the ruling Communist
Party. After a short while perfect calm followed the stormy outbreak. One
cannot attribute great importance to such a reaction because its very nature
show that it was staged as an organized protest.
Some papers condemned
the motives of the main organizers who drew up the document. On the other hand,
the general opinion in Zagreb was that the Party leaders, including Tito
himself, knew that the document was being prepared. More than half of the
signers were Party members. It is hard to imagine that in a country like
Yugoslavia such an action could be undertaken in secrecy. While in Yugoslavia
most people criticize the regime, they are all aware of the omnipotence of the
police, so that no serious antigovernment action could even be thought of.
According to Telegram, (Zagreb) of April 7, 1967, 9
signers of the Declaration were expelled from the Party, 13 were given final
warnings. Miroslav Krleža resigned from the Central Committee of the Communist
League of Croatia. A few days after the Croatian Declaration came the following
Serbian "Proposal for Consideration."
A group of writers
has considered the "Declaration Concerning the Name and the Position of
the Croatian Literary Language" as it was adopted by the Writers'
Association of Croatia after being previously adopted by the most significant
scholarly and cultural institutions of Croatia.
After a thorough
study of this significant and epoch-making document, this group of writers
thinks it is a legitimate and inalienable right of each nation to make
decisions regarding the name and the position of its own language. A writers'
group of Serbia thinks that the institutions which adopted the
"Declaration Concerning the Name and the Position of the Croatian Literary
Language" are the most competent ones in matters pertaining to the
Croatian literary language and they consider this Declaration as representative
and meritorious.
Therefore the group
of writers proposing this Resolution, disregarding the historical and
scientific aspects of the problem, and having in mind the situation created by
the demands of the above mentioned Declaration, considers the Vienna and Novi
Sad Agreements void. The Croatian and Serbian languages will henceforth develop
in full independence and equality. The group of writers proposing the
Resolution considers it natural that such a development applies to all
languages of Yugoslavia and to all scripts: Latin, Macedonian Cyrillic and
Serbian Cyrillic, as well as to all orthographies.
The group of writers
proposing the Resolution is submitting the following demand to the Federal
Parliament, the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Serbia and the
Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Croatia: that the names Croatoserbian
and Serbo-croatian language be consistently and mandatorily removed from the
official usage and that the equality of all Yugoslav languages and scripts be
implemented everywhere in federal administration, legislation, political
organizations, railroads, the post office, telegraph and telephone services,
the Tanjug Agency, Lexicographic Institute, customs and armed forces.
In this connection
the group of writers proposing this Resolution demands that Belgrade Radio and
TV Station cease to be an unauthorized central Yugoslav studio, that it adopt
the Cyrillic script for its local programs whereas in its common Radio-TV
Yugoslav broadcasts it should use the two scripts simultaneously. Our
association, or rather the proposing group, thinks that no effort should be
spared to achieve consistently the equality of the languages and scripts of our
nationalities.
The group of writers
proposing the Resolution considers it their duty and privilege to point out to
the following problem whose importance in the light of the above demands
becomes even more topical:
Our Constitution
guarantees to all our nationalities and minorities the right to an independent
development of language and culture. The very assertion of an independent name
and development of the Croatian and Serbian languages demands that the same
right be guaranteed by constitutional regulations to all Croatians living on
the territory of the Socialist Republic of Serbia and to all Serbs living on
the territory of the Socialist Republic of Croatia.
The group of writers
demands that the following regulations be stipulated in the Constitutions of
the Socialist Republic of Serbia and the Socialist Republic of Croatia
guaranteeing to all Croatians and Serbs: the right to a scholastic education in
their own languages and scripts according to their national programs, the right
to use their national languages and scripts in their dealings with all
authorities, the right to found their cultural societies, local museums,
publishing houses and newspapers, in short, the right to cultivate
unobstructedly and freely all aspects of their national culture." [3]
The Serbian Proposal was drafted by a group of about fifty writer-members of
the Serbian Writers' Association in Belgrade and was to be submitted to the
plenary meeting of the above association. The Proposal accepts the Declaration as
an epoch-making document and fully representative of the Croatian nation since
it is the expression of its most important scholarly and cultural institutions
(Zagreb University, Yugoslav Academy, Matica Hrvatska, Croatian Writers'
Association being among the most important).
While the first part
of the Proposal seems amiable and "brotherly", its second part,
corresponding to the second part of the title, is a warning to their Croatian
"brothers" who seek absolute linguistic independence. If we respect
national individuality in our multinational country, they seem to say, then
each Croatian in Serbia and each Serb in Croatia should demand the same
privileges. That means, for instance, that Serbs in Croatia would be entitled
to their own Serbian language and Serbian script, in school and in their
dealings with Croatian authorities, that they have the right to found their
cultural associations, museums, publishing houses and newspapers. They seem to
say, if this is what our Croatian "brothers" wish, let them have it.
What will happen then
in the Republic of Bosnia and Hercegovina where Serbs and Croatians are mixed
with Moslems who are often nationally unaligned? There are so few Croatians in
Serbia and so many Serbians in Croatia! For centuries Serbs have been moving
west, and the Croatians have hardly been going east! There are practically no
Croatians who would like to live in Serbian cities like Niš, Sabac, Požarevac,
not even Belgrade and many Serbians have moved to Croatian cities in Dalmatia
and Istria. Does not that mean that the administration of the Republic of
Croatia will become physically impossible?
The Serbian Proposal,
in its first part, states more decisively than the Croatian Declaration what
the Croatians want and what their demands imply. In its second part the
Proposal is a serious warning to the Croatians, so serious that, in my opinion,
if the Serbian Proposal were accepted, it would mean a nationalistic
pandemonium, the end of Yugoslavia.
The Croatian
Declaration in itself is a legitimate request that, granted by the federal
authority, would be very constructive for the future of Yugoslavia because it
would tend to satisfy at least partially the Croatians, one of the most
dissatisfied peoples of the country. The Serbian writers viewed the Croatian
Declaration as a provocation, and reacted accordingly. Their very acceptance of
the Croatian requests calls for the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Such a situation
prompted the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to react immediately, to stigmatize
both documents as equally chauvinistic. To sanction the Party line, the press
and the public at large had to condemn the Croatian and Serbian intellectuals
for their deviations. Tito himself spoke in Priština, Serbia, on the square of
Brotherhood and Unity minimizing the linguistic squabbles, attacking the
eggheads[4]
in the name of a man in the street and stating that the Novi Sad Resolutions
are the best solution to the Serbo-Croatian linguistic problem. According to
the London Times Vladimir Bakarić,
the President of the Republic of Croatia, suggested that foreign circles were
"thickly involved in this affair."[5]
In spite of the fact that
an absolute calm was quickly re-instated, the Serbo-Croatian problem, remains
open. It appears today mainly under two aspects, economic and linguistic. For
about twenty years it was submerged by the Communist regime, but a liberalizing
development of the country and frequent contacts with the West allowed the main
problems to come to the surface. Symptomatic of the state of affairs is the
following story circulating in Zagreb: President Bakarić or another leading
political figure asked Miroslav Krležia how he, one of the main creators of
Communist Yugoslavia, could have signed such a chauvinistic document as the
Declaration. The senior writer is supposed to have answered: "I have been
a Communist for about 50 years, but a Croatian for 75."
The development of
any koine is usually connected with the history of the community by which it is
used. The Croatian standard language, however, has been tied up too much with
the Croatian political vicissitudes. If the demands expressed in the Declaration
were granted, the Croatian language might follow a more normal course of
development in the future to the satisfaction of the Croatian people and their
neighbors.
- - -
Journal of Croatian
Studies, VII-VIII, 1966-1967, Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of America,
Inc., New York
[1] This is the translation as published
in Croatia Press (New York), Vol. XXI
(1967), Nos. 253-54, pp. 12-16, with a few minor changes. The Declaration was
accepted and sent to the Federal Parliament on March 15, 1967: Politika (Belgrade), April 8, 1967, p.
5. It was published Ala in weekly newspaper Telegram
(Zagreb), March 17, 1967.
[2] On March 19 the Zagreb daily Vjesnik published the Declaration listing
only eighteen institutions. This is due to the fact that the Department of
Early Croatian Literature of the Zadar University was omitted. The same paper
committed the mistake of printing "sociology" instead of “philology"
in reference to a department of the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences. It
is important to note that all nineteen institutions with language and
literature. Sociology would be out of place here.
[3] This translation was made from the Cyrillic text as
published in Glas Kanadskih Srba
(Windsor, Ontario, Canada) of May 11, 1967. According to that paper, the
Proposal was published in Belgrade (in Borba)
as April 2, 1967, "at the request of many readers," although it had
been adopted on March 19.
[4] He used ironically the Croatian word for
"philosophers." See Telegram
(Zagreb), March 31, 1967. Tito spoke on Sunday, March 27.
[5] April 6, 1967.
Ver
también / See also / Gledaj isto:
The
1967 Declaration and related texts, in 5 languages (16 texts)
Croatian
Matica iseljenika i Deklaracija o nazivu
i položaju hrvatskoga književnog jezika - Ivan Čizmić
Deklaracija o Nazivu i položaja
Hrvatskog Književnog jezika i emigracija – Joza Vrljicak
Deklaracija o nazivu i položaju
hrvatskog književnog jezika (1967) - Hrvatska Revija, godina
XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66), München, Kolovoz 1967
Apel hrvatskih književnika i pisaca u
emigraciji – Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66),
München, Kolovoz 1967
Od Baščanske ploče do zagrebačke
Deklaracije (1076-1967) – Vinko Nikolić - Hrvatska Revija, godina
XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66), München, Kolovoz 1967
http://studiacroatica.blogspot.com.ar/2017/04/od-bascanske-ploce-do-zagrebacke_6.html
Borba za hrvatski književni jezik (1967) –
Krsto Spalatin - Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66), München, Kolovoz
1967
Spanish
Los croatas en defensa de su idioma
nacional - Ivo Bogdan, Buenos Aires - Studia Croatica, Año VIII,
Buenos Aires, 1967, N° 24-27
La declaración sobre la denominación y
la situación actual del idioma literario croata - Studia
Croatica, Año VIII, Buenos Aires, 1967, N° 24-27
Proyecto de resolución de un grupo de
escritores servios - Studia Croatica, Año VIII, Buenos Aires,
1967, N° 24-27
La lengua croata - Zdravko
Sancevic, Caracas, Venezuela - Studia Croatica, Año VIII, Buenos Aires, 1967,
N° 24-27
German
Deklaration
über die Bezeichnung und Stellung der kroatischen Schriftsprache - Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66),
München, Kolovoz 1967
Appell
kroatischer Schriftsteller im Exil - Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66), München, Kolovoz
1967
French
Declaration
sur l'appellation de la langue littéraire croate et sur sa situation dans les
circonstances actuelles (1967) - Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66), München, Kolovoz
1967
Appel
des écrivains croates en exil (1967) - Hrvatska Revija, godina XVII, svezak 1-2 (65-66),
München, Kolovoz 1967
English
Serbo-Croatian
or Serbian and Croatian? Considerations on the Croatian Declaration and Serbian
Proposal of March 1967 –
Includes the Declaration Concerning the
Name and the Position of the Croatian Literary Language - Christopher
Spalatin - Journal of Croatian Studies, VII-VIII, 1966-1967, Annual Review of
the Croatian Academy of America, Inc., New York
Statement
of the Croatian Academy of America Regarding the Zagreb Language Declaration
(1967) - Journal of
Croatian Studies, VII-VIII, 1966-1967, Annual Review of the Croatian Academy of
America, Inc., New York
No comments:
Post a Comment