Talk:Serbo-Croatian kinship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Appeal from article founder

As the person who originally conceived this article I am horrified by both the vandalism and the spiteful input from obviously envious Balkan neighbours. First of all, there is no Serbo-Croatian language nor do any of the Croat contributors on this page speak it. Third, there is no common Serbian, Croat and Bosniak terminology in the field of kinship. What is the point of deleting Serbian kinship terms that are non-existant in Croat and Bosniak and adding Croat variants in parantheses? Make your own page, just don't deface and vandalize ours. --Igor82 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism has no place here. Serbs and Croats are defined by religion and history, not by language: they speak the same dialect of the same language, and it's only nationalists who try to force the language into their concepts of ethnicity. The diversity of Serbian/Croatian as a whole (or what ever you want to call the language you speak) dwarfs the petty differences between Standard Serbian and Standard Croatian. Or Standard Bosnian, for that matter. (Montenegrin is more distinct, if only because it's based on a different dialect of Serbian/Croatian.) An English speaker can't help think this is all rather silly: there would be as much reason to set up separate pages on England-English kin terms, American kin terms, Australian kin terms, Canadian kin terms, etc. Why don't we? Because the minor differences can be handled by footnotes and don't warrant separate articles. What's next, separate Urdu and Hindi kin terms, despite the fact that Urdu and Hindi speakers can't tell the difference? Separate Malaysian and Indonesian kin terms? Moldavian and Romanian kin terms? Brazilian and (Euro)Portuguese kin terms? Mexican and Guatemalan kin terms? If you want to pretend Serbian and Croatian are separate languages on Serbian WP, be my guest, but "don't deface and vandalize ours [article]" and "spiteful input from obviously envious Balkan neighbours"--such hooey has no place here. kwami (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you then merge the Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin language articles then? Do the same for Urdu and Hindi, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. Then you can preach. Creating a Serbo-Croatian kinship creates conflict and an impossibility to reach a NPOV position. Croats keep erasing what they term is not applicable to their language and add whatever variants they use, which are alien to Serbian kinship terms. Reinstate the situation to its previous state. --Igor82 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this so-called 'Montenegrin' is based on exactly the same dialect (Neoštokavian, aka Eastern Herzegovinian). It has the same phonology and grammar as other standard Serbo-Croatian varieties. These two new letters they've created are imaginary phonemes that don't exist and that break phonological orthography, and nobody in Montenegro uses them anyway. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Really! I had just assumed that it was based on a local Montenegrin dialect. Still hardly a different language, but you're saying it's basically just another Moldavian?

Do you have any sources for this? Because Montenegrin language currently states that the letters are for sounds which Montenegrin speakers have but other Serbo-Croatian speakers don't. kwami (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how that tidbit is beyond your grasp of the situation. Here I thought that your position was based on your knowledge of the language, culture and people whose article talk page you are so ever present in. --Igor82 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, so Igor82 (talk · contribs) == Igor (talk · contribs)? Have you made steps to ensure you follow the policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Joy, I no longer use that account, lost the password and the recovery email address is no longer functional. If you can suggest any possible way of recovering that account I would be most gracious, otherwise nice try :). --Igor82 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, read the fine manual, there is a tag you should place on your new user page that clarifies this -- {{User Previous Acct}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have complied. --Igor82 (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you "founded" a page, does not give you exclusive rights to own it, I hope you realise. If you check the history, I tried to create a seperate page for Croatian kinship, but agreed with kwami that it is better to have one page, since the Serbo-Croatian kinship are identical in terms and language, with a few notable exceptions (noted in the page). And who has deleted "Serbian terms"? Are you sure of that accusation? You do realise that many of these terms are used all over Serbo-Croatian speaking lands. (And I only say Serbo-Croatian to include all the languages, Boniak, Montenegrin, etc. that have recently been created.) --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So I create a page, you create one in response and following that, decide to merge them under a new name? Why did you not just contribute to the existing page? That's right, it's all about childish Balkan nationalism. Covet thy neighbour's culture. Extensive research has been done about the Serbian zadruga (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/655305/zadruga), even Britannica puts it in direct context with Serbian culture. Two peoples with distinct languages, cultures, history (and according Wiki pages for them) cannot have a common page for kinship terms. Period. Reinstate my page or I will just start afresh. --Igor82 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem irrational at this point, but I'm afraid there is not much to be done. The page will just get reverted or merged together with the other page(s). --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Many-great grandparents terminology

So, what do people say for relatives that far back? As I noted in the history, no one would ever say that many greats, and the only thing I can think of would be, perhaps, #-great grandparent. Is there anything else/better than can be used, so the table's not so huge? -Bbik 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In serbian language, we can say it, but the elglish language just doesen't hace names for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.34.85 (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Use in Balkans

Are these used in the other Serbo-Croatian languages (Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, ...) and other Balkan Slavic languages (Bulgarian/Macedonian/Slovenian)? I find it hard to believe that they are exclusive to Serbian, or even that any $x$ feature is unique to language $y$. - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we use it in Montenegro too. I remember elderly folk teaching me those terms when i was young. But most south slavic articles are written by serbs supporting the "great serbia" ideology, so for a lot of slavic things in wikipedia you'll find them written as "serbian" (eg serbian mythology, serbian folklore etc...) --bojan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.36.222 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which doesn't prove the "Big Serbia" theory, but that division to Serbs and Montenegrins is an artificial one. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn some history before letting your brainwashed nationalistic thoughts out, and just proving my point. Language has nothing to do with politics. Atleast it shouldn't have, but it does because of people like you. Most slavic nations had those words, since most of them lived in zadrugas. It's just that Serbia and Montenegro were the last to keep them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.123.81 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone know the etymology of these obscure words? They're Slavic up to the forth ancestor, čukun- is from Turkish kökün "root, ancestor", and the rest down to the 15th generation look very non-Slavic to me. If they were borrowed from Ottoman Turkish (like the čukun- prefix), it's hardly likely that they have anything to do with the retention of of zadrugas. My limited resources (Skok's dictionary, ARj, corpora search..) yield absolutely nothing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There isnt much material on this but these terms predate the ottoman period so i ask you now why is it that to you "čukun" is a turkish word and not slavic. Turkish has the word ata (father) and dede (grandfather, old man). Are you going to tell me "otac"/"tata" and "deda" are of turkish origin as well. Why is it that every time Slavic shares a word with another language especially Turkish we assume its theirs. In Serbian there are words similar to "čukun" such as "čuka" (hill, mountain), "čukanj" (bunion), "kuka" (hook) all of which indicate something bulged or humped so there is greater prossibility that the word "čukun" means an old (hunched) grandfather (just like a hrvat - hrbat (srp.), hrbtenica (slo.), hrebet (rus.) - kraljeznica). A "root" or an "ancestor" are "paradeda" and "navrndeda" and "askurdjela" - all the generations that predate your own. To a "deda" root, ancestor are "paradeda" and "narvndeda" but to "navrndeda", "paradeda" isnt a root, ancestor so it doesnt make sense that just to a "cukundeda" we would place the turkish preffix when the meaning can apply to all - besides, it is used for descendants čukununuk/a (great-great-grand-son/daughter) which disproves your turkish origin completely.

To you the words kapak (klop>klap + diminutive suffix -ak) and kasika (kasa (porridge) + diminutive -ka) arent Slavic enough, even though historically turks like the rest of the east ate food with their hands until they invaded the byzantine empire and the balkans and also a second common fact was that they used serbian as a language of politics in international relations which could've influenced turkish in cultural aspects as well very easily, cos whatever the west quasi-linguists say goes, so your opinion doesnt really matter. Those are all ancient Slavic words so their roots arent that obvious especially because there arent comparable (surviving) ones in other IE languages.

It doesnt make sense that we waited up until the 14th century (that is if the moment we saw them we picked up their word kukun and placed it in front of deda otherwise i should say 15th or 16th century) to have a kinship term that was used before the turks knew what a spoon was used for. Turks were nomads before they settled where they are now so they didnt live long due to their poor lifestyle and secondly, since they took a serbian word ata (otac/tata), baba (from greek papa), dede (from serb deda) to them (with very poor kinship terms and short life span) cukun-deda was a "root" or a "distant ancestor".

If your resources yield nothing you cannot claim that they are turkish. If we didnt have the words for our ancestors it doesnt make any sense that we would have a desire to name them all of a sudden and take every single one from the turks (why not greeks or the aborigines - illyrians or thracians for example) and then because we really liked to have a 16th generation term - like 15 wasnt enough - we made up one of our very own "bela orlica"/"beli orao". Also turks have magically lost all of their kinship terminology for 10 generation. Or was it that we traded for those 10 and gave them 2 (dede and ata). Yaay, we got the better end of the deal didnt we. Please cut the crap honestly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.251.222 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 February 2009 (rearranged by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.37.165 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 March 2009

PS I didnt find the word kökün in any turkish or ottoman turkish dictionary. You used your vivid imagination didnt you just like your western colleagues. Good on you mate. And one query before we get into askurdjela or sajkatava - could you please tell me what Hrvat means - a mystery ain' it. "Doesnt sound very Slavic to me" aye. In stead of worrying about serbian kinship terms go worry about your own identity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.251.222 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2009

We don't care about your personal imaginative folk-etymologies, so please provide reliable verifiable references or else your "etymologies" are worth exactly nothing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever have an original idea. Just because I said the same thing you cant just go on repeating it. I, unlike you, use my brain and even though there is historical proof as well as linguistic (go find it yourself, i see research is your forte) I am not going to justify my comment (which is so transparent a cretin could understand it) when you yourself made up some turkish etymology using a word that doesnt exist. Im no longer going to dumb myself down by corresponding with you so goodbye.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.251.222 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 February 2009

Had I not experience with your feeble-minded made-up etymologies on Wiktionary, I would've almost believed you. If you ask me, it takes a cretin not to see that e.g. askurđela cannot possibly be a native Slavic word (ask any Slavist, since you lack the knowledge to make such statements). Anyhow, I've removed all the tagged claims since no one has bothered to provide some real sources for these. Usual dictionaries (ARj, Skok etc.) are all blank on those, so I find them highly ORish PoV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By ranting on aimlessly and emptily negating anything I say, you, though wishful, don't disprove anything. Wikipedia (lacking in any scientific validity and academic reliability) isn't the God given, one and only site where someone interested in Serbian kinship can get information so go ahead and remove it. Why ask someone else - here you are, omniscient, clearly you can explain it all. Svekrva, svastika, šurak, šurnaja, pašenog - all "not very Slavic" and yet they are. I thought, since you are so knowledgeable and into "science", where is the science in asserting that askurdela isn't Slavic merely based on "it doesn't sound Slavic". It stands as Slavic until scientifically/linguistically proven otherwise - though western linguists, along with western historians [all of their sheepish followers included], have a long established chauvinistic and fascist attitude and methods towards those who have more than just a single braincell working at any given time - all in the name of safeguarding (pseudo-)science. You can rant on some more now. Off you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.17.71 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is so funny that in your passionate nationalistic anger you make unfounded and unsourced claims as a way to distance yourself from the Turks, who are themselves quite nationalistic and engage in similar pseudo-science. For the Turks I have to say I am less surprised, as they have been ruled for almost a century now by Kemalists, but in the Balkans, you do not have Atatürk to blame for your nationalistic idiocy. You have Tito. Your folk etymologies are especially laughable in light of how any of the "pure Serbian" words you mentioned as being CLEARLY of non-Turkish descent exist in Tuvan (did the Tuvans also invade Byzantium?) and none of them exist in Russian, Polish, Czech, etc. Whereas they do have a word for "spoon" which has an obvious Serbian cognate. Furthermore, the kinship terms in question all ALSO have cognates in Uyghur, Salar, Tuvan, etc. Naturally Turkish IS quite a mixed up language, but so is Serbian. This obsession with purity makes you both look quite foolish. Anyway, if you don't believe me, look in a dictionary. But dictionaries are of no use to nationalists like yourself. Far better to just make unfounded claims like "Turks didn't have spoons before we civlised them" (did they cup hot soup in their hands on the Asian Steppe? An amusing image to be sure.) Seriously, for people who claim to hate the Turks, Serbian nationalists are so like the Turks it's hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.222.172 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cousin classification

Need the words used for 1st cousins in order to solidly classify the Serbian kinship system in the standard anthropological classification of kinship terminology systems... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

theoretical, or actual

Whenever I see systems this complicated, with forms that would almost never be used, I wonder if they were created as part of a paradigm, and only found in books, or if they are actually known and used by normal people. Do Serbs in conversation really distinguish between 15th- vs. 16th-generation great-grandparents? kwami (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's the difference between a pašenog and a svak? Are these only the relationship between two men who marry sisters, or can a woman call her husband's sister's husband "pašenog"?
You're also missing a term: the equivalent of Spanish consuegro, that is, the father & mother-in-law of one's child (the relationship between people whose children get married). I'm sure Serbian has a word for it! kwami (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, large number of these terms are dubious and cannot be found in any dictionary. They're 100% non-Slavic, and even if they were used, they were probably confined to certain small regions, probably died out long time ago. That IP address from Australia aggressively supportive of them is a Serbian nationalist troll, whom I know very well from English Wiktionary where he has been fabricating etymologies of Ottoman Turkish borrowings into Serbo-Croatian (for more then 2 years now, has been blocked dozens of times). E.g., according to him Serbo-Croatian kašika is from kaša not from Turkish kaşık [1] ^_^

svȃk (as opposed to svȁk "everyone", accent matters) denotes either 1) sister's husband 2) husband's father, i.e. father-in-law (for which the word svèkar is normally used, ancient kinship term of PIE origin (PIE *sweḱuros > Common Slavic & OCS svekrъ, Latin socer, Ancient Greek ἑκυρός, Sanskrit śváśura etc.). The first meaning is the original, the second is by folk-etymology. pašènog, pašánac or hypocorristic pášo denotes, according to the dictionary, "the one who has married the other sister, as opposed to the one who married the first sister". So I guess that woman can call her husband's sister husband pašènog. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I figured something was wrong: no-one needs four words for the husband of one's sister-in-law! Badžo is I believe a Turkish borrowing. Is it the same as pašènog?

Please let us know which of these terms are OR, and I can help police the article when we take them out. kwami (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I've looked them all up in the most comprehensive dictionaries I could find (the so-called "Academy's dictionary" published for almost a century (containing even words mentioned only once by a particular writer), modern encyclopedic dictionary of Croatian with 160k headwords, and Petar Skok's etymological dictionary of Serbo-Croatian which contains tens of thousands of dialectalisms), but unfortunately with zero matches everywhere. Googling them gives the same listing on various forums or self-published websites. So the answer is 1) someone made them up 2) someone copied them from some obscure book which needs to be traced and referenced in the article, providing detailed info where and when these were recorded in live speech of some village. If the latter is true (probably), it must be mentioned in the article that these words are such regionalisms/dialectalisms that have not entered standard/literary language, but are listed only to demonstrate the flexibility of spoken language to have such terms.

bádžo is hypocorristic (diminutive) form of bàdženjāk meaning "brother-in-law" (one's husband's brother). It is borrowed from Ottoman Turkish baǧanak. Synonymous but native Slavic word in Serbo-Croatian is dȅver/djȅver (Ekavian/Ijekavian), also ancient PIE kinship very-well preserved in the daughters (PIE *deh₂iwēr > Common Slavic & OCS děverь, Lith. dieverìs, Skt. devā (nom.sg, stem devr-), AGr. daḗr, Latin lēvir etc.) So pašènog and bádžo are not synonyms. pašènog is also a borrowing, probably from Avar (it's provably not Ottoman Turkish because it's earliest attestation predates Turkish expansion on the Balkans, but is also certainly not Slavic and is confined to the area of South Slavdom). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously some are real words. Could you {{cn}} tag the words you can't find in any dictionary? We can notify whoever added them, and if they can't provide a source, delete them. This seems like the 600 Eskimo words for snow. kwami (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For Croatian, I found jetrva (husband's brother's wife), šurjakinja (wife's brother's wife). The latter would be nice to confirm in Serbian, though from other languages I suspect it might have a broader range of meaning than just this. kwami (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't access it, but J. Halpern A Serbian village (1967) says "The Serbian kinship system identifies specifically five ascending and five descending generations in a direct line from ego." kwami (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"As I mentioned above, large number of these terms are dubious and cannot be found in any dictionary. They're 100% non-Slavic, and even if they were used, they were probably confined to certain small regions, probably died out long time ago. That IP address from Australia aggressively supportive of them is a Serbian nationalist troll, whom I know very well from English Wiktionary where he has been fabricating etymologies of Ottoman Turkish borrowings into Serbo-Croatian (for more then 2 years now, has been blocked dozens of times). E.g., according to him Serbo-Croatian kašika is from kaša not from Turkish kaşık [1] ^_^

svȃk (as opposed to svȁk "everyone", accent matters) denotes either 1) sister's husband 2) husband's father, i.e. father-in-law (for which the word svèkar is normally used, ancient kinship term of PIE origin (PIE *sweḱuros > Common Slavic & OCS svekrъ, Latin socer, Ancient Greek ἑκυρός, Sanskrit śváśura etc.). The first meaning is the original, the second is by folk-etymology. pašènog, pašánac or hypocorristic pášo denotes, according to the dictionary, "the one who has married the other sister, as opposed to the one who married the first sister". So I guess that woman can call her husband's sister husband pašènog. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC) "

Stambuk has no credibility in deciding which words are and which aren't Slavic. He is a student of computer science (in his words) and obviously a linguistics enthusiast (a bad one at that) - NOTHING else. These kinship terms dont exist in any other language but Serbian (now at least). So how can he possibly claim they are foreign if he cannot find them anywhere else. Stambuk is very much inclined at claiming that the whole Slavic language group is a deformed mixture of German and Turkish - "^_^". As for wiktionary blocking - its because he is an anti-Serbian, ultra-(Croatian)nationalist and as he has the power to block anyone he sees fit he did so (with me as the most favourite target) - regardless of whether I did something wrong or not (in his eyes). That's his only sastisfaction I suppose. And as he cannot get the dates to match with the first attestation of pašenog and the Turkish penetration into Europe - he has proposed an Avar origin. Quite an imagination. And somehow the rest of the alleged "non-Slavic" words come from Turkish (he has quite a fetish at claiming anything he cannot explain is of Turkish origin) although anyone who is willing enough to find a list of Turkish kinship terms on the internet can find indo-european words for the closest of kin (brother, father, grandfather) but even this cannot discourage him from believing Turks have a term for a great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. It's so amusing isn't it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.10.126 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 28 May 2009

I suppose we can ignore the rants of a paranoid anonymous editor. (Whoever you are, put your money where your mouth is by providing evidence, rather than engaging in personal attacks.)
Some words are clearly not Slavic, such as пашеног, which is Sogdian in origin. (Whether it passed through the Persians to the Turks or took some other route, I have no idea.) But they're also clearly Serbo-Croat now, so it doesn't really matter where they came from—just as English "aunt", "uncle", "nephew", "niece", and "cousin" are all of Latin origin through the French. I don't care where the words came from, but how they're used, and I can find no evidence for these higher relations, so I deleted them until s.o. can provide some evidence.
That said, the in-law terms are pretty neat. You don't get many European languages with systems this elaborate. I added a Croatian word which I assume is also Serbian, since there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two. We're missing the fourth co-sibling-in-law, which I can't find in Croatian either. kwami (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would I need to "put my money where my mouth is" when I haven't started this polemic but Stambuk hence the first person to provide evidence should be him. His insufferable parroting and Turkish fetishisms don't provide any proof. Why don't you take your own advice and provide evidence for the Sogdian origin of pasenog because merely stating it doesn't prove much, don't you think (this is what I've been trying to tell Stambuk but I'm not getting through to him)? The only time I have "engaged in personal attacks" was when Stambuk had initiated this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.10.31 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 July 2009

Not in Europeran languages, but the Muslims keep track the ancestry of the Muhammad's line so elaborate terminology got developed and eventually borrowed to Serbo-Croatian. It's funny to see this Serb nationalist troll claiming Serbain "exclusivity" of the terms, when it's more than obvious to any Slavic speaker that these terms cannot possibly be native Slavic in origin. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For a billionth time can you please, I beg of you, provide that Albanian, Persian, Turkish, Arabic etc. have ever had a terminology that has 5 of the ancestral terms that are found in Serbian, let alone all of them. Turks borrowed brother (birader), father (ata), grandfather (dede), grandmother (nine) terms from Indo-European languages let alone have a term for a 15th generation ancestor. Until you can prove that the words aren't Slavic you cannot disprove that they are Slavic. It's very simple. And simply stating they aren't without any evidence (evidence isn't "I cannot find them online"/"They don't sound Slavic") doesn't prove a thing. So, once again, I emplore you to find evidence for your hypothesis and then state they aren't Slavic. I sincerely wish you good luck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.10.31 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 July 2009

ps. It's really pathetic what you are trying to do with the label "Serb nationalist". It only works with people borderline moronic and, you and I both know it has nothing to do with nationalism but you stating something (nonsensical) without any proof - while paradoxically wanting the same from others. Don't try turning it into an argument but since you postulate that the terms aren't Slavic I want nothing from you but proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.10.31 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Find a verifiable reference that supports these imaginary terms, or get lost. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's worth discussing in the article, if you can find refs. Many are Slavic, of course, and cog with archaic Russian. They've just passed out of use in most Slavic languages. But the history of the terms—which came in with Islam—is historically interesting. kwami (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

claimed terms deleted for lack of attestation

Don't wanna just delete these, so I'll preserve them here, in case s.o. can come up with a reliable reference for them. kwami (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Serbian (Cyrillic)	Serbian (Latin)	Relation	English translation
б(иј)ела пчела	b(ij)ela pčela	5th descendant	great-great-great-grand-daughter/son
чукунунука	čukununuka	4th female descendant	great-great-grand-daughter
чукунунук	čukununuk	4th male descendant	great-great-grand-son
чукунбаба	čukunbaba	4th female ancestor	great-great-grandmother
чукунд(ј)ед	čukund(j)ed	4th male ancestor	great-great-grandfather
навр(н)баба	navr(n)baba	5th female ancestor	great-great-great-grandmother
навр(н)д(ј)ед	navr(n)d(j)ed	5th male ancestor	great-great-great-grandfather
курђела	kurđela	6th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-grandmother
курђел	kurđel	6th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-grandfather
aскуpђелa	askurđela	7th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
aскуpђел	askurđel	7th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
курђупа	kurđupa	8th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
курђуп	kurđup	8th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
курлебала	kurlebala	9th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
курлебало	kurlebalo	9th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
сукурдола	sukurdola	10th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
сукурдол	sukurdol	10th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
судепача	sudepača	11th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
судепач	sudepač	11th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
парђупана	parđupana	12th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
парђупан	parđupan	12th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
ожмикурка	ožmikurka	13th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
ожмикура	ožmikura	13th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
курајбера	kurajbera	14th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
курајбер	kurajber	14th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
сајкатавка	sajkatavka	15th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
сајкатава	sajkatava	15th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather
б(иј)ела орлица	b(ij)ela orlica	16th female ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother
б(иј)ели орао	b(ij)eli orao	16th male ancestor	great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather

Check this.
Srpski citatni indeks. (in Croatian) Mardešić Sandra, Županović Nada: Rodbinski nazivi u hrvatskom i talijanskom jeziku - primjer različite artikulacije stvarnosti. In: Primenjena lingvistika 2006., br. 7, str. 184-194. I'm citing this work, because I've found the literature in this work on this site. These works mostly deal with Croatian terminology, but because it was written in the times of Yugoslavia, it's possible that these works contain the terminology of other South Slavic peoples.
(in Croatian) Hraste, M. (1956.) Nazivi za rodbinu i svojtu. Jezik, V, 1-4 (probably mostly Croatian, but check)
(in Croatian) Tanocki, F. (1975.) Rodbina (rod) i svojta (svojbina). Jezik, XXII: 95 (probably mostly Croatian, but check)
(in Croatian) Tanocki, F. (1975.-1976.) O upotrebi riječi šogor i šogorica. Jezik, XXIII, 30-32 (probably mostly Croatian, but check)
(in Croatian) Tanocki, F. (1976.-1977.) Bratić i njegova višeznačnost. Jezik, 3-4, str. 122-123 (probably mostly Croatian, but check)
(in Croatian) Tanocki, F. (1986.) Rječnik rodbinskih naziva. Osijek: Izdavački centar radničkog sveučilišta 'Božidar Maslarić' (Croat, Montenegrin, Serb terminology).
Some of these terms (askurdjel, kurdjel, kurebal, sukurbal/sukurov) I've seen in Serbian magazine for children and youth 25 years ago. The text was about the history of one Montenegrin family. Kubura (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked at Rodoslovlje, using 15th gen. ascending as an example, and heard back,

The terms are used in genealogy but most people know only about the first 5 generations.

So it's questionable whether we include these. At least, we shouldn't present them as normal words, since the whole point of kinship typology is how people conceive of their relations, and unknown terms are thus irrelevant. kwami (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Sources to the greater Serbian kinship (with relation written in source)

• (in English)Svetozar Brkić,Živojin Simić (1993) English-Serbian and Serbian-English dictionary: čukundeda
• (in Serbian)Svetomir Ristić (1956) Enciklopediski englesko-srpskohrvatski rečnik: čukundeda
• (in French)Ecole pratique des hautes études (1967) L'Homme, Vol 7: pradeda, čukundeda
• (in Serbian)Radu Flora (1970) Radovi Simpozijuma o srpsko (jugoslovensko)-rumunskim odnosima: pradeda, čukundeda

Okay, I'll add back in the 4th gen. kwami (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

merge

There was a mirror article at Croatian kinship, that was essentially the same apart from the lack of Cyrillic. No discussion after several days, so I merged them. kwami (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree, but I would like to work on this page first a little, and if it is not sufficient, I won't strongly object to a merge. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I won't revert again, but couldn't you just improve the existing article? The diversity in Serbo-Croatian kin terms is going to be greater than any differences between Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian. I understand why politically people would want separate Sr and Hr wikipedias, but I fail to see how this is of any import in English. It would be like having separate articles on RP and GA kin terms. kwami (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New (Foster) section

I corrected the step-relatives terms and added a foster-relatives section. Some step-relations have been moved to foster-relations as they don't suit the meaning of the former but the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.154.148 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)