Original scientific paper
https://doi.org/10.22210/jezik.2025.72.23
Stjepan Babić’s understanding of the origin of the Croatian language and the choice of linguistic registers when translating from Sanskrit
Mislav Ježić
; Retired university professor, academician, HAZU
*
* Corresponding author.
Abstract
In his contribution to the commemoration volume Čuvar hrvatskoga jezika / Guardian
of the Croatian Language in honour of Stjepan Babić, Mario Grčević addressed the very
important topic of Stjepan Babić’s Contribution to the Discussion on the Origin of the
Croatian Literary/Standard Language. As the title suggests, he addressed the discussions
between Dalibor Brozović, Mate Šimundić, Radoslav Katičić, and Stjepan Babić on the
origin of the Croatian standard or literary language. In these discussions, Brozović established
that the Croatian Neo-Stokavian standard language was essentially already present
in the writers of the 18th century, thus overturning the ideologically based interpretation
according to which it was introduced only in the 19th century in the time of Karadžić and
Gaj. In doing so, Brozović introduced and advocated the term “standard language” into
Croatian linguistics, instead of “literary language”. This certainly made his thought more
precise. Babić, however, gradually discovered arguments that the standardization process could be recognized as early as the 17th and even 16th century in the Croatian language. He
preferred to call the language the Croatian literary language rather than the standard language,
although he considered that term to be a synonym. This is partly the difference in
argumentation. Recently, in the Croatian Language Act and, especially, in the conclusions
of the Croatian Language Council, we decided to make a distinction between the terms
“Croatian language”, “Croatian standard language”, and “Croatian literary language”. This
distinction brings additional order into the debate between Babić and Brozović. Another
difference between them was, as Grčević has pointed out, in Brozović’s “overestimation of
the term Neo-Štokavian in the standardization process”. It could be said that Katičić happily
accepted Brozović’s thesis about the beginning of standardization in the 18th century, as
evidenced by the articles that Grčević cites, but that by his book Croatian Language he
had essentially switched to the side advocated by Babić. In addition, it is worth introducing
Vladimir Horvat and his research on the work of Bartol Kašić into the discussion. I will first
try to clarify the terms that our eminent linguists used in this discussion. And then show
how, when translating Sanskrit literature into the Croatian literary language, I experienced
the need of the linguistic, formal and stylistic richness of the entire Croatian literature, at
least since the 16th century, in order to adequately, and even accurately, translate the contents
and literary values of the original. I was afraid that from the point of view of the Croatian
followers of Vuk Karadžić, „vukovci“, who still rule the subconscious of Croatian linguists,
my translation effort would be either condemned or passed over. However, contrary to my
expectations, Croatian literary circles have already awarded these translations three prizes
for literary translation. If there can be a research experiment in linguistics and philology,
then I could say that the reception of my translation experiment confirmed Babić’s theses
on the origin of the Croatian literary language.
Keywords
the origin of the Croatian literary language; the beginning of the standardization of the Croatian language; Stjepan Babić; Dalibor Brozović; Tomislav Maretić; Bartol Kašić; Vuk Stefanović Karadžić; Ivan Gundulić; Croatian literature of the Renaissance and Baroque; Croatian literature of the Enlightenment; Croatian language in translations of classical literature
Hrčak ID:
344267
URI
Publication date:
1.10.2025.
Visits: 625 *