Professor Emeritus Ekrem Čaušević studied Oriental languages and literatures (Turkish, Arabic, and Persian) at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA 1974, PhD 1986). At the same institution he was a professor of the Turkish and Ottoman languages until 1992. In 1994 he founded the Department for Turkish language and literature, which today is part of the Department of Hungarian and Turkish Languages and Literatures and Jewish Studies, at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, in Croatia. He has been head of the Turkish Section since its founding and is a full professor. He has done post-doctoral study in Istanbul, Ankara, Vienna, Budapest, and Sofija. As an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow, he taught for two years at the University of Göttingen. From 1995 until 2011, Prof. Čaušević was a visiting professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo, in addition to his workload in Zagreb. He has written many scholarly articles, as well as a grammar of contemporary Turkish (1996). His research interests include the contemporary Turkish language, Turkish texts of the Ottoman period written in the Latin script, the cultural history of Ottoman Bosnia, lexicography, and literary translation.
Bibliography
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=irhDdQwAAAAJ&hl=en
Address: Prof. Ekrem Causevic, PhD
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Department of Hungarology, Turkology and Judaic Studies
Ivana Lučića 3
10000 Zagreb
CROATIA
E-Mail: ecausevi@ffzg.hr
Bibliography
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=irhDdQwAAAAJ&hl=en
Address: Prof. Ekrem Causevic, PhD
University of Zagreb
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Department of Hungarology, Turkology and Judaic Studies
Ivana Lučića 3
10000 Zagreb
CROATIA
E-Mail: ecausevi@ffzg.hr
less
InterestsView All (27)
Uploads
Papers
In the scientific literature, the Indian Mughals are sometimes confused with the Mongols, although the founder of the Mughal Empire, Babur (1483–1530), had little Mongol blood in his veins. The Mongols, who arrived in Transoxiana during the first half of the thirteenth century and eventually assimilated with the majority Turkic peoples, especially the Turkic-speaking mixture of Turkic peoples (Uyghurs and Karluks), the Iranian Tajiks, Sarts, Sogdians and others, lost their mother tongue, beliefs and nomadic culture. Timur (Tamerlan), the founder of the Timurid dynasty, came into the world in the already Turkified Mongol tribe of Barlas, which had adopted a sedentary lifestyle. The Timurid elite accepted the high (courtly) Persian culture, while also contributing to it. This process of linguistic and cultural assimilation and transformation demonstrates that ethnic origin and ethnic identity are complex concepts. Ethnic origin indicates a biological relationship, while ethnic identity refers to sociocultural affiliation. The “Barlas Turk” Timur, a devotee of high Persian culture and language, a “Mongol” who did not know Mongolian, referred to Genghis Khan as his ancestor and presented himself as a “Mongolian ruler,” in order to strengthen the legitimacy of his authority, but that was the extent of his “Mongolism.” The same can be said for the Mughal dynasty, which was neither ethnically nor culturally Mongolian. Its founder, Timur’s descendant Babur, considered by modern Uzbeks to be an author of classic Chagatay literature, wrote in the Persian language, did not know Mongolian, viewed Mongols as foreigners and spoke about them with hostility. Both Timur and Babur, with their languages (Chagatay and Persian) and cultures (Persian and Chagatai ) belonged to the Chagatai people of Central Asia.
Stereotypes and axiological attributions used by Bosnian Franciscans to de-scribe “Bosnian Turks” (Bosniaks) and Orthodox Christian priests during the second half of the nineteenth century are discussed. The sources for analysis were private letters exchanged by Franciscans during the period from 1850 to 1870 via private channels, in order to prevent the correspondence from falling into the hands of the Austrian and local Ottoman authorities. As the correspond-ence took place in secrecy and without fear of censorship, it may justifiably be assumed to reflect the Franciscans’ authentic opinions and attitudes toward the Ottoman authorities and members of other confessions with whom they shared, among other things, living space and language. Analysis has shown that the axiological attributions in the Franciscan letters resembled the repertoire of perceptions and value judgments encountered in other source of Catholic provenance from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as early modern Croatian literature. Interestingly, however, not a single negative attribute is ascribed to the sultan. On the contrary, he is described as the embodiment of the principle of justice and an exalted ruler, “whose crystal clear water” (a metaphor for justice) is clouded and muddied by representatives of the local authorities.” Since imagological analysis also requires historical contextualization, such an attitude toward the sultan should be viewed within the sociohistorical context. Indeed, the majority of the letters were written when the central authorities, under the sultan’s watchful eye, were strenuously attempting to crush the resistance from the conservative ulema and major landowners to social and agrarian reforms in Bosnia. Since these reforms were of vital importance to Catholics and their survival, the authors of the letters not only praised the sultan and some Ottoman governors in Bosnia but also distinguished Muslims (Bosniaks) who supported the reforms as a way to modernize the Ottoman state. The topic was approached from the imagological aspect through the discursive analysis of constructions regarding the cultural and religious identities in Bosnia at the time.
Key words: imagology, letters, Bosnian Franciscans, interconfessional relations, the Tanzimat reforms in Bosnia
Kaywords: Croatian language. Turkish language; the learning and teaching of Croatian language; contrastive analysis
This paper discusses Ivo Pranjković’s scholarly research on the language of Bosnian Franciscans. Pranjković’s articles and books about the linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the chronicles and literary works written in Croatian by Bosnian Franciscans are considered by the author of this paper to be an immense and valuable contribution to the Croatian philology and to the study of the Croatian standard language tradition,
which until the end of the nineteenth century was almost exclusively tied to the activities of the friars of the Franciscan province of Bosna Srebrena.
Key words: Ivo Pranjković, the language of Bosnian Franciscans, Franciscan literature in Croatian
Keywords: Osman Agha of Timisoara, the Turkish language of Osman Aghaʼs autobiography, the influence of Balkan Slavic languages on western Balkan Turkish dialects, Bosnia
It is known that educated Muslims in Ottoman Bosnia knew Arabic and Turkish, some of them even Persian, and they wrote literary, philosophical, philological and theological works in these languages. As far as uneducated people are concerned, it is still unclear what percentage of the population knew the Ottoman Turkish language (i.e. the spoken idiom which Németh dubbed Bosnian Turkish or Bosnisch-Türkisch), where and how they learned it and what the peculiarities of the idiom on all linguistic levels were.
Philological research conducted on the basis of Latin script texts discovered so far points to the conclusion that this, today extinct, idiom, which non-Turkophone and ethnically heterogeneous Ottoman subjects (mostly south Slavs) used in communication with ethnic Turks, in trade and communication with representatives of local administration, differs from Turkish varieties from western Balkans, which are genetically and typologically subsumed under the west Rumelian dialect of Turkish.
We hold that the west Rumelian dialect, which is the mother tongue of Turks in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Kosovo, should not be considered identical with the Turkish idiom once used by non-Turkish subjects of south Slav origin. This idiom significantly differs on all levels, and in syntax especially, from the west Rumelian dialect, and can be considered as a mixed language type (in German: Mischsprache). The Ottoman language also belongs to the mixed type, but from the sociolinguistic point of view, they are incomparable. The proposed hypothesis is further confirmed by manuscript grammars by Bosnian Franciscans (19th century), where sentences are often encountered which are but copies of syntactic forms of south Slavic languages. To illustrate, we are stating several typical examples: Bileim sen bu evde chizmekarsin joghsa agha. [Sen bu evde hizmetçi misin, ağa mısın öğrenmek istiyorum. = I would like to know whether you are servant or master in this house?]; G’elurse g’elmezse bilmem. [Gelip gelmeyeceğini bilemem. = I don’t know if he will come.]; Kaçinci sahat kalktun? [Saat kaçta kalktın? = When did you get up?]; Ben Memi arkadaşlarum içün yazarum niçün onlar bilmez yazma. [Arkadaşlarım okuma yazma bilmedikleri için ben Memi bunu onlar için yazıyorum. = I’m writing this to Memo on behalf of my friends for they are illiterate.]
The first Turkish studies scholar who noted the unusual features of this idiom was the Prussian consul Otto Blau, who stayed in Bosnia for a considerable period of time around the middle of the 19th century. In his book entitled Bosnisch Türkische Sprachdenkmäler, Blau wonders whether the Bosnian Turkish idiom is in fact a west Rumelian dialect, or one of the speeches of that dialect, or poorly learned Turkish. He himself compares it to children’s talk. The above-cited examples show that the Bosnian idiom can indeed be compared to the language of children who have not yet gained communicative competence. This article focuses exactly on certain peculiarities of the idiom and is an excerpt from an extensive study based on Latin-script manuscripts in Turkish.
Dialectological characterictics of Turkish dialects in the Balkans were formed during the compliceted migration processes and under the strong influences of non-Turkish (manly Slavic) language substratum. These influences are especially visible in syntax. Apart from the large number of commom characteristics which, generally speaking, can be indentified as „Slavic“, it is indisputable that each one of the dialects has it own characteristics based on the peculiarities of subsstratums throughout which the dialects continue to exist. Influences of Serbo-Croatian on „Bosnian“ Turkish in matters of syntax are visible not only in the sentence word order but also in the process of conjunctionalization of Turkish pronouns, adverbs and adverbial expressions (specific calques /loan translations/ of Serbo-Croatian conjunctions). After analysing these influences the author brings the following conclusions: a) Peculiarity of „Bosnian“ dialect is that it was used by non-native (bilingual) speakers and that it was used by ethnically non-Turkish population of Bosnia as a mean of oral communication with Turkish and other non-Slavic subjects of Ottoman Empire; b) For that reason the influence of native language, i.e. syntax of Serbo-Croatian languages was more intensive; c) „Bosnian“ dialect was one of West Rumelian (Balkanian) dialects of Turkish language, and according to its syntactic charachteristics it could be called „Bosnian“, not only in sense of its geographycal determination, but also in sense of its variant-type determination.
In the scientific literature, the Indian Mughals are sometimes confused with the Mongols, although the founder of the Mughal Empire, Babur (1483–1530), had little Mongol blood in his veins. The Mongols, who arrived in Transoxiana during the first half of the thirteenth century and eventually assimilated with the majority Turkic peoples, especially the Turkic-speaking mixture of Turkic peoples (Uyghurs and Karluks), the Iranian Tajiks, Sarts, Sogdians and others, lost their mother tongue, beliefs and nomadic culture. Timur (Tamerlan), the founder of the Timurid dynasty, came into the world in the already Turkified Mongol tribe of Barlas, which had adopted a sedentary lifestyle. The Timurid elite accepted the high (courtly) Persian culture, while also contributing to it. This process of linguistic and cultural assimilation and transformation demonstrates that ethnic origin and ethnic identity are complex concepts. Ethnic origin indicates a biological relationship, while ethnic identity refers to sociocultural affiliation. The “Barlas Turk” Timur, a devotee of high Persian culture and language, a “Mongol” who did not know Mongolian, referred to Genghis Khan as his ancestor and presented himself as a “Mongolian ruler,” in order to strengthen the legitimacy of his authority, but that was the extent of his “Mongolism.” The same can be said for the Mughal dynasty, which was neither ethnically nor culturally Mongolian. Its founder, Timur’s descendant Babur, considered by modern Uzbeks to be an author of classic Chagatay literature, wrote in the Persian language, did not know Mongolian, viewed Mongols as foreigners and spoke about them with hostility. Both Timur and Babur, with their languages (Chagatay and Persian) and cultures (Persian and Chagatai ) belonged to the Chagatai people of Central Asia.
Stereotypes and axiological attributions used by Bosnian Franciscans to de-scribe “Bosnian Turks” (Bosniaks) and Orthodox Christian priests during the second half of the nineteenth century are discussed. The sources for analysis were private letters exchanged by Franciscans during the period from 1850 to 1870 via private channels, in order to prevent the correspondence from falling into the hands of the Austrian and local Ottoman authorities. As the correspond-ence took place in secrecy and without fear of censorship, it may justifiably be assumed to reflect the Franciscans’ authentic opinions and attitudes toward the Ottoman authorities and members of other confessions with whom they shared, among other things, living space and language. Analysis has shown that the axiological attributions in the Franciscan letters resembled the repertoire of perceptions and value judgments encountered in other source of Catholic provenance from Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as early modern Croatian literature. Interestingly, however, not a single negative attribute is ascribed to the sultan. On the contrary, he is described as the embodiment of the principle of justice and an exalted ruler, “whose crystal clear water” (a metaphor for justice) is clouded and muddied by representatives of the local authorities.” Since imagological analysis also requires historical contextualization, such an attitude toward the sultan should be viewed within the sociohistorical context. Indeed, the majority of the letters were written when the central authorities, under the sultan’s watchful eye, were strenuously attempting to crush the resistance from the conservative ulema and major landowners to social and agrarian reforms in Bosnia. Since these reforms were of vital importance to Catholics and their survival, the authors of the letters not only praised the sultan and some Ottoman governors in Bosnia but also distinguished Muslims (Bosniaks) who supported the reforms as a way to modernize the Ottoman state. The topic was approached from the imagological aspect through the discursive analysis of constructions regarding the cultural and religious identities in Bosnia at the time.
Key words: imagology, letters, Bosnian Franciscans, interconfessional relations, the Tanzimat reforms in Bosnia
Kaywords: Croatian language. Turkish language; the learning and teaching of Croatian language; contrastive analysis
This paper discusses Ivo Pranjković’s scholarly research on the language of Bosnian Franciscans. Pranjković’s articles and books about the linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the chronicles and literary works written in Croatian by Bosnian Franciscans are considered by the author of this paper to be an immense and valuable contribution to the Croatian philology and to the study of the Croatian standard language tradition,
which until the end of the nineteenth century was almost exclusively tied to the activities of the friars of the Franciscan province of Bosna Srebrena.
Key words: Ivo Pranjković, the language of Bosnian Franciscans, Franciscan literature in Croatian
Keywords: Osman Agha of Timisoara, the Turkish language of Osman Aghaʼs autobiography, the influence of Balkan Slavic languages on western Balkan Turkish dialects, Bosnia
It is known that educated Muslims in Ottoman Bosnia knew Arabic and Turkish, some of them even Persian, and they wrote literary, philosophical, philological and theological works in these languages. As far as uneducated people are concerned, it is still unclear what percentage of the population knew the Ottoman Turkish language (i.e. the spoken idiom which Németh dubbed Bosnian Turkish or Bosnisch-Türkisch), where and how they learned it and what the peculiarities of the idiom on all linguistic levels were.
Philological research conducted on the basis of Latin script texts discovered so far points to the conclusion that this, today extinct, idiom, which non-Turkophone and ethnically heterogeneous Ottoman subjects (mostly south Slavs) used in communication with ethnic Turks, in trade and communication with representatives of local administration, differs from Turkish varieties from western Balkans, which are genetically and typologically subsumed under the west Rumelian dialect of Turkish.
We hold that the west Rumelian dialect, which is the mother tongue of Turks in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Kosovo, should not be considered identical with the Turkish idiom once used by non-Turkish subjects of south Slav origin. This idiom significantly differs on all levels, and in syntax especially, from the west Rumelian dialect, and can be considered as a mixed language type (in German: Mischsprache). The Ottoman language also belongs to the mixed type, but from the sociolinguistic point of view, they are incomparable. The proposed hypothesis is further confirmed by manuscript grammars by Bosnian Franciscans (19th century), where sentences are often encountered which are but copies of syntactic forms of south Slavic languages. To illustrate, we are stating several typical examples: Bileim sen bu evde chizmekarsin joghsa agha. [Sen bu evde hizmetçi misin, ağa mısın öğrenmek istiyorum. = I would like to know whether you are servant or master in this house?]; G’elurse g’elmezse bilmem. [Gelip gelmeyeceğini bilemem. = I don’t know if he will come.]; Kaçinci sahat kalktun? [Saat kaçta kalktın? = When did you get up?]; Ben Memi arkadaşlarum içün yazarum niçün onlar bilmez yazma. [Arkadaşlarım okuma yazma bilmedikleri için ben Memi bunu onlar için yazıyorum. = I’m writing this to Memo on behalf of my friends for they are illiterate.]
The first Turkish studies scholar who noted the unusual features of this idiom was the Prussian consul Otto Blau, who stayed in Bosnia for a considerable period of time around the middle of the 19th century. In his book entitled Bosnisch Türkische Sprachdenkmäler, Blau wonders whether the Bosnian Turkish idiom is in fact a west Rumelian dialect, or one of the speeches of that dialect, or poorly learned Turkish. He himself compares it to children’s talk. The above-cited examples show that the Bosnian idiom can indeed be compared to the language of children who have not yet gained communicative competence. This article focuses exactly on certain peculiarities of the idiom and is an excerpt from an extensive study based on Latin-script manuscripts in Turkish.
Dialectological characterictics of Turkish dialects in the Balkans were formed during the compliceted migration processes and under the strong influences of non-Turkish (manly Slavic) language substratum. These influences are especially visible in syntax. Apart from the large number of commom characteristics which, generally speaking, can be indentified as „Slavic“, it is indisputable that each one of the dialects has it own characteristics based on the peculiarities of subsstratums throughout which the dialects continue to exist. Influences of Serbo-Croatian on „Bosnian“ Turkish in matters of syntax are visible not only in the sentence word order but also in the process of conjunctionalization of Turkish pronouns, adverbs and adverbial expressions (specific calques /loan translations/ of Serbo-Croatian conjunctions). After analysing these influences the author brings the following conclusions: a) Peculiarity of „Bosnian“ dialect is that it was used by non-native (bilingual) speakers and that it was used by ethnically non-Turkish population of Bosnia as a mean of oral communication with Turkish and other non-Slavic subjects of Ottoman Empire; b) For that reason the influence of native language, i.e. syntax of Serbo-Croatian languages was more intensive; c) „Bosnian“ dialect was one of West Rumelian (Balkanian) dialects of Turkish language, and according to its syntactic charachteristics it could be called „Bosnian“, not only in sense of its geographycal determination, but also in sense of its variant-type determination.
17. stoljeća i izuzetno svjedočanstvo za pogled “s druge
strane” na Hrvatsku i okolne zemlje toga
doba.
Abidin Temizer, Ph.D. & İsmail Avcı, Ph. D. Editors
Ciklus započinje 3. travnja 2018. Adresa: Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Ul. Ivana Lučića, 10.000 Zagreb
http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/turkolog/?p=2253 /
Department of Turkish Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb
"Middle East and the Challenges of Contemporary World" Lecture Series
Program:
April 3, 2018 - Faiz Sheikh (University of Exeter) - "Islamic Politics from Caliphate to Colonialism to Modernity: the Shifting Boundaries of the Sacred"
April 10, 2018 - Deniz Kuru (Turkish-German University, Istanbul) - "Years of Solitude: Turkish State and Society as Lonely Actors between Europe and Asia" (in Croatian)
April 24, 2018 - Vedran Obućina (Institute of European and Globalization Studies) - "State Sanctioned Islam: Political System of Islamic Republic of Iran" (in Croatian)
May 15, 2018 - Daniel Bučan (Zagreb) - "'Arab Spring' and Islam" (in Croatian)
May 23, 2018 - Damla Işık (Regis University) : “Rising Populism and Women’s Rights in Turkey”
Further lectures will be announced later
Objavljuje na engleskom, njemačkom i poljskom jeziku.
nastala je usporedbom leksičke građe dvaju rječnika iz 17. st. Prvi je
Toskansko-turski rječnik Antonia Mascisa [Vocabolario Toscano e
Turchesco] tiskan 1677. god., a drugi Talijansko-turski rječnik Giovannija
Molina [Dittionario della lingua Italiana, Turchesca] iz 1641. godine...