Josip Broz Tito i njegovo vreme

[apostata]

Čitao sam ja o tome i kada je to bilo aktuelno, a i poslije kada je postalo istorija.

[nautilus]

Tačno to, ali taj plakat zaista ništa ne dokazuju, osim da ljudi, koji su sedeli u komisiji nisu ni istoričari, ni istoričari umetnosti, pa im se moglo podvaliti.

Dokazuje da je taj sistem u kome su nagrade za plakate dijelili oni koji se u plakate ne razumiju bio truo. A jedan od razloga za to je upravo nekriticnost i kult licnosti ciji je Dan mladosti, vjerovatno najveci, simbol. Edited May 25, 2013 by nautilus

[Otto Katz]

Dokazuje da je taj sistem u kome su nagrade za plakate dijelili oni koji se u plakate ne razumiju bio truo.

Pa dobro, bilo pa prošlo. Bitno je da današnji sistem nije truo. Pretpostavljam da sad nagrade za plakate dijele oni koji se razumiju.

[nautilus]

Pa dobro, bilo pa prošlo. Bitno je da današnji sistem nije truo. Pretpostavljam da sad nagrade za plakate dijele oni koji se razumiju.

Kralju Lujo, par postova gore napisah nesto o Gebelsovom govoru. Edit: A i nije bas zahvalno porediti Ovo sa bilo cim, pa ni sa Onim. Nije zahvalno za Ono. Edited May 25, 2013 by nautilus

[radisa]

Pa to, poenta je da smo mi neki sistem, koji možda i jeste bio loš, ali je bio sistem, zamenili nečim (što definitivno nije sistem), što je u svim aspektima mnogo lošije od tog, nekog, sistema po prosečnog stanovnika bivše SFRJ.

[apostata]

Pa dobro, bilo pa prošlo. Bitno je da današnji sistem nije truo. Pretpostavljam da sad nagrade za plakate dijele oni koji se razumiju.

Ne - to je ostalo isto!Ali bitno je da nema kulta, da je kritičnost sveprisutna i da je sistem zdrav k'o dren.

[nautilus]

Ajde i ti na citanje posta u kome se pominje Gebelsov govor prije nego sto ljudima pocnes stavljati u usta rijeci koje nisu ni pomislili.

[Filipenko]

Pa to, poenta je da smo mi neki sistem, koji možda i jeste bio loš, ali je bio sistem, zamenili nečim (što definitivno nije sistem), što je u svim aspektima mnogo lošije od tog, nekog, sistema po prosečnog stanovnika bivše SFRJ.

Ko to "mi"? Hrvatima, Crnogorcima i Slovencima je bolje nego što im je bilo u Jugoslaviji. Misliš na ovo malo jada od Srbije, Bosne i Makedonije?

[radisa]

Ko to "mi"? Hrvatima, Crnogorcima i Slovencima je bolje nego što im je bilo u Jugoslaviji. Misliš na ovo malo jada od Srbije, Bosne i Makedonije?

Ja mislim da ni prosečnom Hrvoju, Đetiću ili Janezu nije bolje. Možda još i Janezu jeste, ali za Hrvoja i Đetića sam ubeđen da nije, mada su oni možda ubeđeni da jeste.Muji(svoj trojici), Srbi i Mlađanom Makedončetu definitivno nije bolje, kao ni nekom albancu sa Kosova.

[dillinger]

Hrvatima iz tog sistema valja sve osim Jugoslavije a Srbima sve osim Tita. Oni bi rado neovisnu SR Hrvatsku a mi Kraljevinu SFRJ.

Edited May 25, 2013 by dillinger

[Prospero]

ipak je ambroz^tm u pitanju

Tito nije bio Jugosloven poreklom?

i originalni članak iz '77

...Serbo-Croatian falls into the category of languages which do not have the palatalized/non-palatalized consonant opposition. There are four true soft palatals, which are orthographically represented as follows: c df nj lj. The consonantal and vocalic phonemes are in free distribution in regard to one another, and there is no principle of intrasyllabic harmony. With the exception of the true palatals, none of theconsonants are palatalized. Consequently, the following minimal pair, which would be impossible in a language like Russian (we are talking of phonological, not lexical, differences), can and does occur:mani 'disregard it' (imperative of manuti)manji 'smaller'Here the vowel quality of i is exactly the same after the palatal and non-palatal consonants. On the other hand, a native speaker of Russian (or Polish) would probably pronounce both words with a palatalized n, because he would automatically associate a palatalized consonant with a high front vowel. This is Tito's pronunciation of Serbo-Croatian, and it is best described as a foreign accent.Tito's patterns of palatalization are as follows:A. Before i1. I is palatalized consistently, in both word initial and word middle positions:a) l'ičnostl 'personality'b) u republ'ici 'in the republic'2. n is frequently palatalized in the word middle position:a) o mnogim aktueln'im pitanjima 'concerning many current questions'b) gradjan'ima 'to the citizens'3. Other consonants are palatalized sporadically in the word middle position:a) najv'išim rukovodiocima 'to the highest managers'b) prošle god'ine 'last year'B. Before e1. l is palatalized frequently in word initial position and consistently in word middle position:a) gl'edišta 'viewpoints'b) da svoje pogl'ede 'to have one's own views'2. n is palatalized frequently in word initial and word middle positions:a) naše n'esvrstane pol'itike 'of our non-aligned policy'b) pedeset pete godin'e 'in 1955'3. Other consonants are palatalized sporadically in word middle positions:a) sm'etnja 'bother'b) kr'etanje 'movement'As was pointed out above, this type of palatalization is completely alien to Serbo-Croatian, but is quite common among speakers of Russianand Polish who have learned Serbo-Croatian as a foreign language. In conjunction with this, it is interesting to note that Dragoljub (Draza) Mihailović, the Serbian World War II guerrilla leader, was convinced that Tito was a Russian after meeting him on 19 September 1941. In additionto his (for a native) idiosyncratic pronunciation, Tito is prone to morphological errors as well.During the speech in question, the following mistakes were observed:A. Inflection1. Declensiona) sa domaćinama instead of sa domaćinima 'with the hosts'b) između dvije zemalja instead of izmedju dvije zemlje 'between two countries'c) u razgovorim instead of u razgovorima 'in conversations'2. Conjugationa) došlo su do izražaja podudarna gledišta instead of došla su do izražaja podudarna gledišta 'coinciding views were emphasized'B. Derivation1. mogućno instead of moguće 'possible'2. nebezbednost instead of bezbednost 'security'...In view of the above, a logical way to account for Tito's speech would be to assume that a non-Yugoslav,perhaps a Russian or a Pole, assumed Josip Broz's identity. The substitution would have taken place beforeWorld War II, because already in 1941 Mihailovic noticed Tito's pronunciation. The most likely time forthis substitution would have been the late 1930s, when Tito was leading a clandestine life and was stillrelatively unknown. Even if the present Tito is not the original Josip Broz, it does not matter a greatdeal.All of Tito's major accomplishments, from his successful struggle against the Germans to his rise to worldprominence as a leader in the non-aligned movement, have taken place after 1941. Thus, it is doubtful whethera further inquiry concerning his real identity would serve more than a purely academic purpose, becausehe gives every indication of intending to go down in history as Josip Broz, the Yugoslav. On the other hand,the simple fact that Tito is probably not the real Josip Broz who was born in 1892 does have some real significance.Firstly, Tito may very well be a much younger man. A second, and perhaps more important, point is that Tito'snon-Yugoslav origin may explain his impartiality, and consequent success, in dealing with the various ethnicgroups in Yugoslavia. It remains to be seen whether those who follow him will enjoy the same success.

[Roger Sanchez]

Trebali su tu Ciju dovest u Bednju, možda bi tamo izdijagnosticirali da oni uopće nisu u indoeuropskoj grupi.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Twwq38Aydck

[ArleKino]

Jesu li ovi kreteni ikad čuli nekog Zagorca ili Zagorku kako priča?Na to sve, jedan od glavnih izvora im je osnivač prvog lingvističkog pokreta u porobljenoj Evropi prof. dr Agoljub Mihailović.

[Prospero]

pih što ste teška publika

[Filipenko]

Ova "analiza" je jedna totalna zajebancija i dokaz da i u svetu ima amaterizma koliko voliš i na najozbiljnijim (kao) mestima. Naravno, ovo će sledbenici Deretića i ustašo-monarhističko-balističke alijanse (prepoznaju se po zajedničkoj kovanici "Jugoslavija tamnica naroda") jedva dočekati. Ovaj put im neće smetati što je to CIA.