Talk:Vuk Karadžić/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Vuk Karadžić. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wolf

One thing could be clearer: is it "Vuk" or "Karadzic" that means "wolf"? It seems pretty clear it isn't "Stefanovic", and I would certainly think it's "Vuc", but the text ought to make it clear either way. -- John Owens 06:51 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Vuk is one of two Serbian words for wolf. -- Someone else

Death

Some sources indicate February 7 as the day of death. Is this a sort of Gregorian Julian calendar confusion?

Serbs are anywhere

I moved this from the article; Vuk never said or wrote "Serbs are anywhere", etc. but I feel that something could be extracted from this paragraph. Nikola 15:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Romantic nationalism, contemporaneous with Vuk and an inspiration to him, led him to speak infamously. "Serbs are everywhere," Vuk said. To the Croats, who by then with Austria's help had developed an acute sense of nation, this was anathema. To this day, Croat nationalists use Vuk's position against him. It is imperative to understand, however, that Vuk was of one mind with his Croatian contemporaries on many a question. In the fog of Balkan politics in the nineteenth century, Vuk stood against the suffocated traditional Serbian position (represented by the religious establishment), so much so that he was not once declared an agent for Austria (against Russia) and condemned by the Church.

Croatian language

Are you kidding me? The man openly said that Croats are really Serbs! Mihovil 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE Shinhan 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Vuk's reforms were nothing new compared to the Croatian language. Should it be mentioned that his language differed radically from any previous Serbian literature. Should it be mentioned that he basically copied Croatian, and Called it Serbian...YOU HAVE NO LITERATURE, YOU HAVE NO CLAIMS, he coppied Croatian!

In great fear that this conversation will burst into nationalist war, I shall say just what I can't resist to. The same as the English have old English, the Serbs had old Slavic that by time evolved into what we call modern Serbian. The most important thing that Vuk did was make the language Serbs spoke in those times standard language, instead of the old Slavic that kept being "standard" although no one really spoke it anymore among people. That "modern" language has been used in generations and generations, hundreds of years already even before Vuk reformatted Serbian, and there are hundreds of traditional songs that were sung, written documents written in old Slavic letter but using modern Serbian words. Since many Serbs in todays Croatia were in those times declared "catholic Serbs" (which are now almost all, if not all, declared as Croats because of their religion), he included part of their speech into modern Serbian. While the Serbs have the great opus of literature in the past, Croats have very little since they had always lived in parts that have been either part of Austria or some other country, never independent until they made union with Serbia in later centuries and parted later, it is absurd to talk about any "copying", and at the same time quite realistic to say that Croats speak modern Serbian with few modifications.Ml01172

I'll have to agree with the above, the two languages that are today known separately as Serbian and Croatian were part of the Serbo-Croatian group before, and those two were not considered to be separate before at least early in the 20th century. Vuk considered them to be people's languages (narodni jezici), and basically, the only differences he ever saw were those in dialect, in phraseology, and a number of miscellaneous grammar discrepancies. Now, if you, Mr. "YOU HAVE NO CLAIMS, YOU HAVE NO LITERATURE" have at least a shred of respect in that nationalist heart of yours, I indulge you to stay your ridiculous, ignorance-rooted 20th century nationalism and take it elsewhere. Or if you do have a neutral source from that period of time, present it. Otherwise, your comments on this subject will be considered nonsensical.SimonKTemplar (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that today also Serbian and Croatian VARIANTS of Serbo-Croatian language are considered as ONE language by a vast majority of linguists and institutions in the world, and it will stay like that forever. Saluti.207.216.132.157 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We also need to add that Serbs never before 19. Cenutry had any literature at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.122.141 (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sveti Sava, Dositej Obradovic, Andrija Zmajevic....... This are writers of serbian literature for 19. century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.251.67 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

University Anecdote

While it is amusing, I wonder if it can be backed up somehow? This is an encyclopedia after all. 217.24.21.41 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

humble demand

Quote: "It is widely believed in Croatia that he stole words out of Croatian grammar to write Serbian grammar in 1814, he is often called a thief in Croatia." Unquote.

Please cease writing such bollocks, because fair, civilized and responsible people will keep deleting it and keep beating you with the ugly stick. Karadžić put his Serbian grammar scriptures together long before he even had a chance to venture into what could be seen as that time's contemporary Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKTemplar (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That was vandalism, i removed it... --WhiteWriter ^speaks

YOU CAN'T DEMAND

It is widely believed in Croatia that he stole words out of Croatian grammar to write Serbian grammar in 1814, he is often called a thief in Croatia.

Serbs can't face the facts, and the first person who couldn't face the truth was Vuk Karadzic, so he copied croatian language and called it "serbian". Also there were VERY FEW people who declared as "catholic Serbs" but that term is not possible because Croats had last names before Serbs and many Serbs today who declare themselves as Serbs are actually Croats, a good example is Vojislav Seselj, one of bigger chetniks ever known, you can identify him by his last name, Seselj is PURE CROATIAN last name. Many Serbs today hold CROATIAN last names like Maric, Horvatovic, Babic. While there are very few Croats with pure Serbian last names, at the same time there are many Serbs with pure Croatian last name.

For your big disappointment, this just confirms, for thousandth time, that Serbs and Croats are ONE NATION. You CAN'T DEMAND IT! PERIOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.132.111 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't I?

I'm not about to bend my opinion for some second-degree nationalist. Just because our languages stem from the same root doesn't mean that we're both the same nation; what would the Afrikaners all across northern and southern Africa say if you called them all Dutch nationals, just because Afrikaans is so similar to dutch. What would the citizens of the US say if you called them all English, Spanish and whatnot? No, Serbs are Serbs, and Croats are Croats. This was known ever since the earliest days and the Slavic migrations south towards Panonia and further down the Balkans; the fact being that our vernacular languages didn't change so much in their basis since the middle ages, as well as the fact that Serbs and Croats were distinct as PEOPLES, ever since before the term "nation" even existed. And on top of that, you use the word "steal" too lightly for your own good. Using a pattern to organize one's grammar based on an already existing pattern is not stealing - it's actually one's liking and adherence to standards in order to achieve a degree of quality. Vuk knew this, as well as the fact that we are distinct from the Croats in more than one way, and his very wish to construct our grammar based on the standard which the Croats had used, and he respected them for it. Otherwise, to put this bluntly, being a man of humble descent, Vuk put together our grammar by using the same method the Croats did to put together theirs, and that is not called stealing. Such examples of adopt and adapt are visible with many, MANY other kinds of documents and opuses throughout history (an example would be the Japanese, who made their new constitution in the Meiji period using the German one as a role model). So if you've learned anything by now, you should have by far gotten the message that you should cease your decadent nationalist blubbering and listen to educated people who will in fact something right to say, and stop posting old wives tales claiming they're proven fact unless you actually can prove it. SimonKTemplar (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Birth date

Serbian WP says he was born 26 October 1787 (OS), which equates to 6 November (NS). If 26 October is correct, this conversion would be appropriate, as there was an 11-day gap between the calendars at that time. Yet we're saying 7 November, not 6 November. Can someone explain this disrepancy? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. If the following is a response to my question, can a translation please be provided? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a copy/paste from some sort of an article about Vuk. It is crazy to translate everything nor it is needed but in the lead it says that he is born on the November 6.; 1787 year. The best thing would be simply to find a valid reference about his birth date since this kind of answer can`t be used as a reverence. Adrian (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Vuk Karadžić – Biografija

Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (Tršić, 6. novembar 1787 – Beč, 7. februar 1864) je bio srpski filolog, reformator srpskog jezika, sakupljač narodnih pesama i pisac prvog rečnika srpskog jezika. Vuk je najznačajnija ličnost srpske književnosti prve polovine XIX veka. Učestvovao je u Prvom srpskom ustanku kao pisar i činovnik u Negotinskoj krajini, a nakon sloma ustanka preselio se u Beč, 1813. godine. Tu je upoznao Jerneja Kopitara, cenzora slovenskih knjiga, na čiji je podsticaj krenuo u prikupljanje srpskih narodnih pesama, reformu ćirilice i borbu za uvođenje narodnog jezika u srpsku književnost. Vukovim reformama u srpski jezik je uveden fonetski pravopis, a srpski jezik je potisnuo slavenosrpski jezik koji je u to vreme bio jezik obrazovanih ljudi. Tako se kao najvažnije godine Vukove reforme ističu 1818, 1836, 1839, 1847 i 1850.

Biografija

Vuk Stefanović Karadžić je rođen u Tršiću blizu Loznice 1787, u porodici u kojoj su deca umirala, pa je po narodnom običaju, dobio ime Vuk kako mu veštice i duhovi ne bi naudili. Njegova porodica se doselila iz Crne Gore iz Drobnjaka. Majka Jegda, devojački Zrnić, rodom je iz Ozrinića kod Nikšića.

Vukova kuća u Tršiću danas Pisanje i čitanje je naučio od rođaka Jevte Savića, koji je bio jedini pismen čovek u kraju. Obrazovanje je nastavio u školi u Loznici, ali je nije završio zbog bolesti. Školovanje je kasnije nastavio u manastiru Tronoši. Kako ga u manastiru nisu učili, nego terali da čuva stoku, otac ga je vratio kući. Na početku Prvog srpskog ustanka, Vuk je bio pisar kod cerskog hajdučkog harambaše Đorđa Ćurčije. Iste godine je otišao u Sremske Karlovce da se upiše u gimnaziju, ali je sa 19 godina bio prestar. Jedno vreme je proveo u tamošnjoj bogosloviji, gde je kao profesor radio Lukijan Mušicki. Ne uspevši da se upiše u karlovačku gimnaziju, on odlazi u Petrinje, gde je proveo nekoliko meseci učeći nemački jezik. Kasnije stiže u Beograd da upozna Dositeja Obradovića, učenog čoveka i prosvetitelja. Vuk ga je zamolo za pomoć kako bi nastavio sa obrazovanjem, ali ga je Dositej odbio. Vuk je razočaran otišao u Jadar i počeo da radi kao pisar kod Jakova Nenadovića. Zajedno sa rođakom Jevtom Savićem, koji je postao član Praviteljstvujuščeg sovjeta, Vuk je prešao u Beograd i u Sovjetu je obavljao pisarske poslove. Kad je Dositej otvorio Veliku školu u Beogradu, Vuk je postao njen đak. Ubrzo je oboleo i otišao je na lečenje u Novi Sad i Peštu, ali nije uspeo da izleči bolesnu nogu, koja je ostala zgrčena. Hrom, Vuk se 1810. vratio u Srbiju. Pošto je kraće vreme u Beogradu radio kao učitelj u osnovnoj školi, Vuk je sa Jevtom Savićem prešao u Negotinsku krajinu i tamo obavljao činovničke poslove.

Mina Karadžić Nakon propasti ustanka 1813. Vuk je sa porodicom prešao u Zemun, a odatle odlazi u Beč. Tu se upoznao sa Bečlijkom Anom Marijom Kraus, sa kojim se oženio. Vuk i Ana imali su mnogo dece od kojih su svi osim kćerke Mine i sina Dimitrija, umrli u detinjstvu i ranoj mladosti (Milutin, Milica, Božidar, Vasilija, dvoje nekrštenih, Sava, Ruža, Amalija, Aleksandrina). U Beču je takođe upoznao cenzora Jerneja Kopitara, a povod je bio jedan Vukov spis o propasti ustanka. Uz Kopitarevu pomoć i savete, Vuk je počeo sa sakupljanjem narodnih pesama i radu na gramatici narodnog govora. Godine 1814. je u Beču objavio zbirku narodnih pesama koju je nazvao „Mala prostonarodna slaveno-serbska pesnarica“. Iste godine je Vuk je objavio „Pismenicu serbskoga jezika po govoru prostoga naroda napisanu“, prvu gramatiku srpskog jezika na narodnom govoru. Iduće godine je izdao drugu zbirku narodnih pesma pod imenom „Narodna serbska pesnarica“. Zbog problema sa knezom Milošem Obrenovićem bilo mu je zabranjeno da štampa knjige u Srbiji, a jedno vreme i u austrijskoj državi. Svojim dugim i plodnim radom stiče brojne prijatelje, pa i pomoć u Rusiji, gde je dobio stalnu penziju 1826. godine. U porodici mu je ostala živa samo kćerka Mina Karadžić. Kao godina Vukove pobede uzima se 1847. jer su te godine objavljena na narodnom jeziku dela Đure Daničića „Rat za srpski jezik“, „Pesme“ Branka Radičevića, Njegošev „Gorski vijenac“(pisan starim pravopisom) i Vukov prevod Novog zavjeta, ali Vukov jezik je priznat za zvanični književni jezik tek 1868. četiri godine, nakon njegove smrti. Vuk je umro u Beču. Posmrtni ostaci preneseni su u Beograd 1897. godine i sa velikim počastima sahranjeni u porti Saborne crkve, pored Dositeja Obradovića. Počasni je građanin hrvatske prestonice, grada Zagreba. Reforma ćirilice i rad na gramatici i rečniku Podstaknut Kopitarevim savetom da napiše i gramatiku narodnog jezika, Vuk se prihvatio ovog posla, za koji nije imao dovoljno stručne spreme. Ugledajući se na gramatiku slavenosrpskog jezika, koju je u 18. veku napisao Avram Mrazović, Vuk je uspeo da završi svoje delo. Njegova gramatika koju je nazvao „Pismenica serbskoga jezika“, izašla je u Beču 1814. Bez obzira na nesvršenost i nepotpunost, ovo delo je značajno kao prva gramatika govora prostoga naroda.

Srpski riječnik 1818 Svestan nesavršenosti svoje Pismenice, Vuk je prihvatio primedbe Kopitara i drugih naučnih radnika, pa je uz prvo izdanje „Srpskog rječnika“ iz 1818. objavio i drugo, prošireno izdanje svoje gramatike. U rečniku je bilo 26.270 reči koje su se koristile u govoru naroda u Srbiji, Sremu i Vojvodini. Ovo drugo izdanje gramatike je nekoliko godina kasnije (1824) na nemački jezik preveo Jakob Grim. Osnovna vrednost Pismenice je bilo njeno radikalno uprošćavanje azbuke i pravopisa. Vuk je u njoj primenio Adelungov princip: „piši kao što govoriš, a čitaj kao što je napisano“. Raniji pokušaji, poput onog Save Mrkalja, su bili nesistematski i neuspeli. Vuk je smatrao da svaki glas treba da ima samo jedno slovo, pa je iz dotadašnje azbuke izbacio sve nepotrebne znakove, koja su se pisala iako nisu imala svojih glasova. Stara slova je podržavala Srpska pravoslavna crkva, koju je u njima videla neku vrstu veze kulture i pismenosti sa religijom. Vuk je stvorio nove znake tako što je pojedina slove stopio sa tankim poluglasom (l + ь -> lj, n + ь -> nj). Izgled slova đ je prihvatio od Lukijana Mušickog, dž je uzeo iz nekih starih rumunskih rukopisa, a ć iz starih srpskih rukopisa. Uzimanje slova j iz latinice su mu njegovi protivnici iz crkvenih krugova pripisivali kao najteži greh, uz optužbe da radi na pokatoličavanju srpskog naroda. Iz staroslovenske azbuke Vuk je zadržao sledeća 24 slova: njima je dodao jedno iz latinične abecede: Ј ј i pet novih: a izbacio je: U početku Vuk nije upotrebljavao slova f i h. Slovo h je dodao u cetinjskom izdanju „Narodnih srpskih poslovica“ iz 1836. Za drugo izdanje „Srpskog rječnika“ Vuk je prikupljao građu iz govora stanovništva Crne Gore, Dubrovnika, Dalmacije i Hrvatske. Ovo izdanje je objavljeno u Beču 1852. u njemu se našlo 47.427 reči. Ovo izdanje Rječnika na nemački je preveo Jakob Grim. Do kraja svog života Vuk je radio na daljem prikupljanju građe, ali ga je smrt sprečila da spremi i treće izdanje. To su tek 1898. učinila dvojica njegovih poštovalaca, Pera Đorđević i Ljubomir Stojanović.

Borba za uvođenje narodnog jezika u književnost Tokom rada na gramatici, rečniku i izdavanju narodnih pesama, Vuk je počeo da se bavi pitanjem književnog jezika, koji je u njegovo vreme predstavljao haotičnu mešavinu. Stara srpska književnost razvijala se na srpskoj redakciji staroslovenskog jezika sve do početka 19. veka. U 18. veku došlo je do snažnog uticaja ruskih crkvenih knjiga na književni život Srba. Elementi ruskog jezika su sve više prodirali u dotadašnji dotadašnji crkveno-književni jezik i tako je stvoren veštački rusko-slovenski jezik, koji je u Vukovo vreme bio zvanični jezik crkve, škola i književnosti.

Srpske narodne pjesme, 1. izdanje 5. knjige pjesama iz 1865. Školovani ljudi učili su iz knjiga na starom jeziku, unoseći u njega elemente ruskog i srpskog narodnog jezika. Na taj način stvoren je slavenosrpski jezik, kojim se pisalo kako je ko znao. Takva nesređena situacija je bila osnova sa koje je Vuk krenuo u borbu protiv pisaca stare škole. Borba je počela Vukovom kritikom romana Usamljeni junoša 1815. i Ljubomir u Elisijumu 1817. Milovana Vidakovića. Kritika je bila usmerena na loše piščevo poznavanje jezika, koji je predstavljao nesređenu mešavinu imenskih i glagolskih oblika starog, slovenskog i narodnog jezika. Kako je Vidaković u to vreme bio najpopularniji srpski pisac, pa je ovakav Vukov napad izazvao buru u književnoj javnosti. Pored Vidakovića, u polemici su učestvovali i Joakim Vujić, Lukijan Mušicki, Pavle Berić i Gliša Geršić. Crkva i njeni najviši predstavnici su prednjačili među Vukovim protivnicima. Karlovački mitropolit Stefan Stratimirović, je već posle prvih Vukovih knjiga, dejstvovao preko budimskih vlasti da se onemogući štampanje knjiga. Stratimirović se posebno nije mirio sa Vukovom azbukom, zbog izbacivanja starih ćiriličnih slova i uvođenja slova J, smatrajući to napuštanje pravoslavlja i pokatoličavanjem. Pored srpske crkve, najveći Vukov protivnik je bio Jovan Hadžić, osnivač i predsednik Matice srpske i jedan od najobrazovanijih Srba tog vremena. Hadžić, koji je u početku bio Vukov saradnik, ali su se kasnije razišli po pitanjima jezika, je 1837. počeo polemiku sa Vukom Karadžićem. U spisu „Sitnice jezikoslovne“, Hadžić je dao upustva za rad budućim gramatičarima. Vuk je potom napisao svoj „Odgovor na sitnice jezikoslovne“, u kom je zamerio Hadžiću na slabom poznavanju narodnog jezika i neprincipijalnosti u pisanju. Vukov odgovor je bio oštar, pa je Hadžić nastavio polemiku napisavši nekoliko članaka i brošura („Utuk I“, „Utuk II“, „Utuk III“…). Polemika između Karadžića i Hadžića je trajala skoro deceniju, a Karadžić je odneo pobedu tek 1847. 1847. je godina Vukove pobede, i godina u kojoj je konačno dokazao da je srpski narodni jezik jedini pravi jezik Srba, tj. da je staroslovenski jezik mešavina ruskoslovenskog i srpskog narodnog jezika bez čvršćih pravila. Te godine izdate su četiri knjige Vuka i njegovih saradnika:

Prevod „Novog zavjeta“ sa crkvenoslovenskog na srpski jezik, autor:Vuk

* „Rat za srpski jezik i pravopis“, autor:Đura Daničić,
* „Pesme“, autor:Branko Radićević
* „Gorski vijenac“, autor: Petar Petrović Njegoš.

Izdavanjem Gorskog vijenca, dokazano je da se i najveća filozofska dela mogu pisati čistim srpskim narodnim jezikom.

Sakupljanje narodnih umotvorina Na beleženju narodnih umotvorina Vuk je počeo da radi odmah po poznanstvu sa Kopitarom. Kopitar je gajio veliku ljubav prema slovenskim narodima, interesujući se naročito za narodne pesme, a nemački kulturni radnici, koji su u svojoj zemlji sakupljali starine i izučavali narodnu prošlost, bili su mu bliski prijatelji. U Beču je Vuk 1814. štampao zbirku narodnih pesama nazvanu „Mala prostonarodna slaveno-serbska pjesnarica“, u kojoj se našlo oko 100 lirskih i 6 epskih pesama. Ovo je bio prvi put da se jezik prostog naroda pojavio u štampi.

Novi zavjet 1847 Iduće godine je izdao drugu zbirku narodnih pesma pod imenom „Narodna serbska pesnarica“, sa oko stotinu lirskih i 17 epskih pesama, koje je zabeležio po Sremu, kod Mušickog u Šišatovcu, Zemunu, Pančevu, Sremskoj Mitrovici i Novom Sadu. U ovoj zbirci su se našle pesme koje su ispevali Tešan Podrugović i Filip Višnjić. Kopitar je u stranim listovima pisao o srpskoj narodnoj poeziji, pa čak i prevodio na nemački jezik. Među zainteresovanim za srpski jezik našli su se Johan Volfgang Gete i braća Grim. Nova izdanja narodnih pesmama izašla su 1823. i 1824. u Lajpcigu i 1833. u Beču. Nova izdanja počela su izlaziti u šest knjiga od 1841. Zbog velikih štamparskih troškova peta i šesta knjiga su pojavile tek 1862. i 1864. Posle velikog uspeha sa narodnim pesmama, Vuk je počeo da radi na sakupljanju svih vrsta narodnih umotvorina. Prva zbirka pripovetki „Narodne srpske pripovijetke“ su se štampale 1821. u Beču. U ovom izdanju se našlo 12 pripovedaka i 166 zagonetki. Godine 1853. u Beču je izašlo novo izdanje pripovedaka, koje je Vuk posvetio Jakobu Grimu. Vukova kćerka Mina je sledeće godine prevela pripovetke na nemački jezik. Beleženje narodnih poslovica je išlo paralelno sa sakupljanjem pesama i pripovedaka. Zbog intervencije mitropolita Stratimirovića, bečke vlasti nisu dozvolile izdavanje zbirke bez dozvole budimskih vlasti. Kako je Vuk u to vreme boravio u Crnoj Gori, na Cetinju je 1836. štampao „Narodne srpske poslovice“ koje je posvetio vladici Petru II Petroviću Njegošu. Posle ovog izdanja Vuk je za života objavio još jedno izdanje poslovica.

Sakupljanje narodnih običaja Specifičan život srpskog naroda za vreme vladavine Turaka, izolovan do savremenosti, učinio je da se arhaična patrijarhalna verovanja i običaji u njemu dugo očuvali. Stoga je Vuk Karadžić predano radio na opisivanju narodnog folklora. „Srpski rječnik“ je pružio prve bogate opise običaja i verovanja naroda. Tumačeći pojedine reči, Vuk je unosio i opise.

Istoriografski rad Pored rada na reformi srpskog jezika i prikupljanju narodnih umotvorina, Vuk Karadžić se bavio i istoriografskim radom. Kao učesnik Prvog srpskog ustanka, Vuk je spremio ogroman materijal o događajima se do 1814, kao i o vladavini kneza Miloša Obrenovića. Godine 1828. je objavio rad „Miloš Obrenović knjaz Serbiji“. Od obilne građe o Prvom srpskom ustanku, Vuk je izdao samo jedan deo „Praviteljstvujušči sovjet serbski…“, u kom je opisao najvažnije bitke iz Prvog srpskog ustanka i neslogu između srpskih starešina. Najistaknutije vođe Prvog srpskog ustanka Vuk je opisao u nekoliko istorijskih monografija. Tu su obuhvaćeni Hajduk Veljko Petrović, Miloje Petrović, Milenko Stojković, Petar Dobrnjac, Hadži Ruvim i drugi. Konačno, Vuk je poznatom nemačkom istoričaru Leopoldu Rankeu dao materijal o Prvom srskom ustanku, prema kojoj je Ranke kasnije napisao svoje delo „Srpska revolucija“ (nem. Die serbische Revolution).

Filološki rad U prvoj polovini 19. veka, uz pomoć tadašnjih vrhunskih filologa, kao što su braća Grim i austrijskih vlasti koje je predstavljao Jernej Kopitar, Vuk Stefanović Karadžić je reformisao srpsku ortografiju i pravopis, praveći veliki rez između dotadašnje slavenosrpske kulture i novog standarda.

Srpski riječnik, 2. izdanje iz 1852. Karadžićeva kapitalna dela, među kojima se ističu prvo izdanje “Srpskog rječnika” (1818.), drugo, znatno prošireno (1852.), te prevod “Novoga zavjeta” (1847.), postavili su temelje za savremeni standardni srpski jezik, a znatno su uticala i na oblik savremenog standardnog hrvatskog jezika, ponajviše u fazi tzv. hrvatskih vukovaca ili mladogramatičara. Osnovna načela Karadžićeve reforme se mogu sažeti u tri tačke: 1. izjednačavanje narodnog i književnog jezika, tj. insistiranje na folklornim jezičkim oblicima, za koje se smatralo da su pouzdan vodič zabeležen u narodnim pesmama i poslovicama;

2. prekid sa svim starijim oblicima srpske književnosti i pismenosti i novo utemeljenje standardnog jezika bez oslona na tradiciju;
3. i, novoštokavski folklorni purizam, što se očitovalo u čišćenju jezika od crkvenoslavizama koji su identifikovani kao ruskocrkvena naplavina koja ne odgovara glasovnoj i gramatičkoj strukturi srpskog jezika.

Na tehničkom nivou, Karadžićeva reforma se manifestovala u novoj srpskoj ćirilici u kojoj su izbačeni nepotrebni poluglasnici (ъ, ь), apsorbirani grafemi za lj, nj, dž koje je predlagao Sava Mrkalj (Vuk je gotovo u potpunosti preuzeo grafiju “narodnog” pisanog idiolekta Gavrila Stefanovića Venclovića, monaha u manastiru Rači s kraja 17. i početka 18. veka), te uvedena grafema j iz (nemačke) latinice. Novi fonološki pravopis, primeren prozirnom idiomu kakav je srpski, zamenio je stariji tvorbeno-morfološki. Jezički supstrat je bila novoštokavska ijekavština (istočnohercegovačko-krajiško narečje), koju je Vuk Karadžić stilizirao delom i prema hrvatskim pisanim djelima (tjerati umesto ćerati, djevojka umesto đevojka, hoću umesto oću). Ali, zbog uticaja srpske građanske klase u Vojvodini i Srbiji, ta je reforma prihvaćena u nešto izmenjenom obliku: ijekavski refleks jata (ѣ) je zamenjen ekavskim (npr. dete umesto dijete). Srpski književni jezik ijekavskog refleksa jata ostao je u Crnoj Gori, Bosni i Hercegovini, među Srbima i Hrvatskoj, kao i u narodnim govorima zapadne i jugozapadne Srbije.

Vukov grob ispred Saborne crkve u Beogradu Vuk je pored svog najvećeg doprinosa na književnom planu, dao veoma značajan doprinos i srpskoj antropologiji u kombinaciji sa onovremenom etnografijom. Uz etnografske zapise ostavio je zapise i o fizičkim osobinama tela. U književni jezik je uneo bogatu narodnu terminologiju o delovima tela od temena do stopala. Treba napomenuti da se ovim terminima i danas koristimo, kako u nauci tako i u svakodnevnom govoru. Dao je, između ostalog, i svoje tumačenje veze između prirodne sredine i stanovništva, a tu su i delovi o ishrani, o načinu stanovanja, higijeni, bolestima, kao i o pogrebnim običajima. U celini posmatrano, ovaj značajni doprinos Vuka Karadžića nije toliko poznat niti izučavan. (Karadžić, V.: Sabrana dela, knjiga XVIII, Prosveta, Beograd 1972.)

Nagrade

Vuk je bio cenjen u Evropi: biran je za člana Berlinske, Bečke, Petrogradske akademije nauka, primljen je za člana naučnih društava u Krakovu, Moskvu, Getingenu, Parizu…, odlikovan je od ruskog i austrougarskog cara, od pruskog kralja i Ruske akademije nauka. BIBLIOGRAFIJA VUKA STEFANOVIĆA KARADŽIĆA 1787 – 1864 (Navedena su samo prva izdanja) - Mala prostonarodna slaveno-serbska pesnarica, Beč, 1814 - Pismenica serbskoga jezika, Beč, 1814 - Narodna srbska pjesnarica, II deo, Beč, 1815 - Srpski rječnik istolkovan njemačkim i latinskim rječima, Beč, 1818 - Narodne srpske pripovjetke, Beč, 1821, dopunjeno izdanje, 1853 - Narodne srpske pjesme III, Lajpcig, 1823 - Narodne srpske pjesme II, Beč, 1823 - Narodne srpske pjesme I, Beč, 1824 - Mala srpska gramatika, Lajpcig, 1824 - Žizni i podvigi Knjaza Miloša Obrenovića, Petrograd, 1925 - Danica I-V, Beč, 1825-1833 - Žitije Djordja Arsenijevića, Emanuela, Budim, 1827 - Miloš Obrenović, knjaz Srbije ili gradja za srpsku istoriju

našega vremena, Budim, 1828

- Luke Milovanova opit…, Beč, 1823 - Narodne srpske pjesme IV, Beč, 1833 - Narodne srpske poslovice i druge različne, kao i one u običaj

uzete riječi, Cetinje, 1836

- Crna Gora i Crnogorci (na nemačkom), Štutgart, 1837

- Pisma Platonu Atanackoviću, Beč, 1845

- Novi zavet Gospoda našega Isusa Hrista (prevod), Beč, 1847

- Kovčežić za istoriju, jezik i običaje Srba sva tri zakona, Beč, 1849

- Praviteljstvujušči sovjet serbski za vremena Kara-Djordjijeva, Beč, 1860

- Srpske narodne pesme V, Beč, 1865

- Srpske narodne pjesme iz Hercegovine, Beč, 1866

- Život i običaji naroda srpskog, Beč, 1867

- Nemačko srpski rečnik, Beč, 1872 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.22.154 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unesco assigning years to people in the 18th century?

Can someone please explain what is "UNESCO has proclaimed 1787 the year of Vuk Karadzić." in the text supposed to actually mean?

Referring to him as just "Vuk"

Non-Serbs (i.e., most en.wikipedia readers) are likely to wonder why this article (and many external sources) often refer to him as simply "Vuk", like calling Joseph Campbell just "Joseph". Even his form of Cyrillic is often referred to as "Vuk's Cyrillic" or "Vuk Cyrillic", and the rationale for this will be a mystery to most readers here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

He is actually just as often referred to as Karadžić. The article should definitely refer to him as Karadžić per Manual of Style and common usage alike. Using the first name in this case (as well as in majority of cases) implies undue familiarity with the subject or some sort of endearment. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That is because he is exceptionally important figure in Serbian history and culture. Before him, name "Vuk" was not very frequent. So, he is, by no doubt, the most famous Vuk in Serbian culture and history. Your comparison with Joseph is not good, because there are many famous people with that name, while only one truly important man named Vuk. The situation is similar with other famous people in Serbian history who have rare names (for example, Dositej Obradović is usually called just "Dositej" and rarely "Obradović"). This article should, of course, use "Karadžić" because this is English language, and that is the standard. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand. My point is that, a) we shouldn't be using that overly-familiar style with him, but our article should mention that in Serbian culture he is often simply referred to as "Vuk" (or, for that matter, simply "Karadžić"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

He is very often referred to just as "Vuk". See, for example his monument in Belgrade (File:Vukov spomenik.JPG). The inscription reads just "To Vuk from Serbian people" (Вуку Српски народ). Meša Selimović wrote a book about him titled "Za i protiv Vuka" (Supporting and opposing Vuk). A memorial event is held every September dedicated to him, and named "sr:Vukov sabor" (Vuk's gathering). On the other hand, I don't know any notable example of him being referred to just as "Karadžić". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 5 7 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Vuk Stefanović Karadžić → Vuk Karadžić – This is per WP:COMMONNAME. "Vuk Stefanović Karadžić" is his full name, but "Vuk Karadžić" is shorter form that is far more common. General Google search returns twice as many hits for "Vuk Karadžić"[1] than for "Vuk Stefanović Karadžić"[2]. English language search is similar: 18 pages of results for "Vuk Stefanović Karadžić"[3] and 26 for "Vuk Karadžić"[4]. Various schools and streets are named after him, and their name is always "Vuk Karadžić". Every city in Serbia has a Vuk Karadžić street, and I've never heard of "Vuk Stefanović Karadžić street". Full name is used only in formal writing, while the sorter form is more common. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE; this is unnecessary middle-name disambiguation with no one to disambiguate from, like moving Gerald Ford to Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. for no reason. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, retain full name in lead.--Zoupan 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per all above. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per all above. Sovereign /^Sentinel 12:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article contains unclear or confusing statements that need clarification

For example: "In Montenegro, however, Njegoš's printing press operated without the archaic letter known as the "hard sign"; in other words, it adhered to Vuk Karadžić's orthography." It is not the case that the absence of the "hard sign" Ъ suddenly turns the old Serbian or SLaveno-Serbian orthography into Karadžić's orthography. The main hallmarks of Karadžić's orthography are the exclusion of all obsolete letters (that are not pronounced in modern Serbian), such as Ѣ, Ъ, I, V, etc, and the inclusion of new letters J j Љ љ Њ њ Ћ ћ Ђ ђ Џ џ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC) So only if "Njegoš's printing press" used all the new letters and did not use all the obsolete letters, could it be said that "it adhered to Vuk Karadžić's orthography."

That it correct. I removed that sentence. It was unsourced anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

one letter instead of two, today it is widely used

as example, đamija for mosque, đinđic as surname etc. see Vuk Stefanović Karađić Anton.aldemir (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anton.aldemir: No. "Đ" and "Dž" are two different letters in Gaj's alphabet. "Đ" corresponds to Cyrillic "Ђ", while "Dž" corresponds to Cyrillic "Џ". The link you provided is obvious misspelling. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vuk Karadžić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Karadžić and Greater Serbia ideology

@Mm.srb: The people advancing the theory that Bosniaks, Croats et al are Serbs, in Republika Srpska, Montenegro and elsewhere, do by and large tend to identify themselves as Serbs by ethnicity. Hence I wrote that this theory is a non-fringe matter of dispute among Serbian (as in of Serbian ethnicity, not as residents of the Republic of Serbia) scholars. Your Politika column shows there are scholars identifying as Serbs who support this theory, but nothing beyond that. The book linked to in the original ref, however, makes the claim that this position is not held by non-Serbs, completing the argument. Daß Wölf 19:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Naturally It would be foolish to expect Bosniaks or Croats NOT to reject this theory. Agreed? That is an utterly flawed logic, no matter the fact that is a part of someone's academic work. Just think about it for a minute. My definition is logicaly solid - as if in we have 2 scientists from 2 countries (and more) debating about something. The way you wish to formulate the matter it would seem that it's something of the past and not a serious theory at all. That is the exact opposit of NPOV. Plus, this "Greater Serbia" thing is childish. One would think that the notable Vuk Karadžic was a Šešelj's SRS party memeber or something of the sort. Labeling people like that is not polite and it's not factually correct. It only comes up as someone's interpretation of the events and people who lived 150+ years ago with a modern (90s and onward) perspective. Pro-Shtokavian theory is not a thing of the past. As a matter of fact, the renown Pavle Ivic supported and contributed to the theory. Several people with no Serbian background were in favour of the theory, like Josef Dobrovský and Pavel Jozef Šafárik. It is not factually correct that they claim that the speaker of Shtokavian are Serbs, but of Serbian origin. Those are two different things. Please do not water down a complicated issues and apply NPOV. Mm.srb (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We cannot accept Serbian research as fact and dispose of Bosniak, Croatian et al as POV, while ignoring the non-existence of supporting research by people outside the Balkans and without Balkan ethnicity. That would hardly be NPOV, wouldn't you agree? Suggesting Ivić, who is also a Serb from Belgrade, hardly helps this issue. I agree that Dobrovský and Šafárik -- if they indeed claim this -- might count as sources without conflict of interest, but still that would be elucidating that an international debate may have existed in the 18th century. Ethnology, linguistics et al have progressed tremendously since those times, and it would be dubious to presume that the same debate continues in the same manner 200 years later. Daß Wölf 17:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)