Talk:Badnjak (Serbian)/Archive

Specify non-English references

For each non-English reference, the language needs to be specified. If one of the citation templates are used, then please use the language= parameter to do so. Gary King (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - one reference was without the language indication. VVVladimir (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

It would probably help the readers of the article if they had some idea of what the badnjak looked like, even if it is just a picture of the wooden log. Pictures of tree to finished product would be a bonus. Glubbdrubb (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, there are no suitable free images that I know of. For example, a picture like this one would be a nice illustration of the cutting of badnjak. (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

In Bukovica, the two thicker logs are placed beside each other, and the thinner one, called trinity, is placed in the gap between the two logs. ("Bringing in and burning", second paragraph, last sentence)

A cross section of these three logs when placed into their positions on the fire would be similar to this picture:

Thereby the two lower circles should be separated so that there is a gap between them, and the width of the gap would be less than the diameter of the upper circle (so that the thinner upper log can't fall right in between the two thicker lower logs). That sentence should reflect this picture.

Veselin Čajkanović argues that in the pre-Christian religion of the Serbs, a treee would have been the seat or temple of a spirit or divinity, but would also be considered a divinity itself. ("Interpretation", 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence)

In this statement Čajkanović argues the following. Some trees, not regarded as divinities themselves, were regarded as seats of divinities. However, the badnjak is an indication that there were trees which were regarded as divinities themselves. That sentence should make this distinction. VVVladimir (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suggest you edit my changes so they are accurate. You are the expert, I only tried to improve the readability and grammar. I will take another look when are done. Glubbdrubb (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work expanding the public celebration and summarizing the article in the lead. I will just give it a spot check... --Glubbdrubb (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to how the priest "incenses" the badnjak. Do you mean he puts the "raw" incense on the badnjak or that he holds a burning plate of incense above it? "Incenses" is not a word I can find in any dictionary and its use is confusing. Could you clarify it for me please. --Glubbdrubb (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dictionary says: to incense - to apply or offer incense to; to burn incense before ('incenses' would be 3rd person singular present of 'to incense'). Incensing is a very common act in rituals of the Orthodox Church. Incense is placed in a special container which a priest holds by its chain (see this picture), and burned. The slowly burning incense releases a perfuming smoke. The priest swings the container in the direction of people or objects that he wants to apply the smoke to, i.e. incenses them. In this picture, the priest behind the table holds that container (called kadionica in Serbian) in his right hand. VVVladimir (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought it would be something like that but I have heard of burning the incense directly in the fire. To incense someone also means to make them very angry, which is why the term in this usage may be unfamiliar to many readers. Quick Question: What dictionary do you use?--Glubbdrubb (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Third New International Dictionary. VVVladimir (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This article had a GA Review. See Talk:Badnjak/GA1. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian tradition?

Badnjak is not simply a Serbian tradition, it is a tradition universally present in most South Slavic and maybe even Western Slavic countries. This article is hardly comprehensive in treating this subject. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar traditions are common in Europe (see Yule Log) but this article is about the Serbian tradition. Nikola (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Bulgarian and the Croatian badnjak (i.e. бъдник) customs are distinct enough from the Serbian ones to justify separate articles (if someone will write them). This tradition today seems to be the most vigorous among the Serbs, at least in the public celebration. VVVladimir (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is not a bad idea to add a short overview of other European Christmas-log traditions as a comparison to the Serbian, as I've just did. VVVladimir (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are quite similar. I have added both the Bulgarian and Croatian types here. <<This tradition today seems to be the most vigorous among the Serbs>> is not true at all. The fact that Christmas Eve is also called Badnjak in Croatian means it can't get its own article. Bulgarian is almost the same too. I don't know too much about Macedonia though, if someone wants to add that. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last paragraph of the opening part since this is not just about the Serbian badnjak. I was going to add it down in the Serbian section, but in fact, it is already there, almost verbatim. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yule log traditions (Slavic and non-Slavic) are recorded throughout Europe, and they all share some similarities while also manifesting dissimilarities. This particular article is specifically about the Serbian Yule-log tradition. As for the title of a separate article, it can be Badnjak (Croatian tradition), or something like that. You can find first-hand information about that tradition in the cited work of Professor Marko Dragić (see the "References" section). The structure of his work is, in fact, somewhat similar to this article: after dealing with the Croatian customs in some 20 pages, he gives a short overview of the Serbian customs in about a page long chapter (though in this article the short overview is more of a pan-European character).

It is undoubtedly true that this tradition is today the most vigorous among the Serbs, because the badnjak is publicly laid on the fire on Christmas Eve in each parish of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not only in Serbia and Republika Srpska, but also throughout he world wherever there is a significant number of Serbian diaspora. And this is not the case with the Yule-log traditions in other Churches, be they Eastern or Western. Regarding this, you also made a blatantly disruptive edit by removing an essential paragraph from the lead of the article. Vladimir (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will not create a "Croatian Badnjak" page. Why on earth should I when it is called "badnjak", and why do you believe Serbs should get the entire badnjak page to themselves, with no mention of anyone else, while Croatians and Bulgarians are delegated to another page? You have ABSOLUTELY no right to censor information. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not your personal page. This behavoir reminds me of extremists who dislike others so much they do not want any mention of them anywhere. And where on EARTH do you get this information from? "This tradition is most vigorous among the Serbs" SO WHAT. That is not the point of the article or Wikipedia itsel, even if it was true. My family is Croatian, my family's church is Croatian, and we all have a badnjak on December 24. It is a HUGE part of traditional Christian tradition. The point of Wikipedia is to inform, not to create your segregated pages. I made No such "blatant disruptive edit, because that paragraph is almost verbatim on the bottom of the paragraph.

I wold like to invite you to read the references I posted. Maybe you might learn something and realize that badnjak celebrated widely and perhaps more by Croats than Serbs. Why does my families' church burn a badnjak then? Why do my uncles go into the forest to chop down the Badnjak, and why have my ancestors been doing for centuries? Why do churches in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the Croatian diaspora celebrate it as well? Your comments feel like a slap in the face. Someone telling me that I cannot edit a page to add more information and correct the (wrong) assumption that Badnjak is Serbian. Please. Do you honestly believe that this page should wholly remain devoted to the description of only a Serbian Badnjak? I'll ask around to Croatian users and see if this is fair. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to relax a little Jesuislafete. There are yule log traditions from all over Christian Europe. To suggest that the Badnjak has been usurped by Serbs is ridiculous; just write an article on the Croation custom, which can be linked to from here. Same with the Bulgarian celebration. That Croations and Serbs use the same name for their yule logs is irrelevant. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I am saying Fatuorum. "To suggest that the Badnjak has been usurped by Serbs is ridiculous" because it is, yet that is what user VVVladimir is saying, and you too apparently. He blatantly said that Serbs celebrate it sooo much more than anyone else ever, and no one else deserves a place on this article. "Just write an article on the Croation custom, which can be linked to from here." OK, are you going to change the name of this article to Serbian badnjak? because that is the only fair solution. So what you're saying is that Yule log should have a different page for everyone?? That is an awful lot of pages that need to be created. You better inform the people who are in charge of that page of that.

So you are willing to have the name of this article changed to Serbian Badnjak so it won't be confused with Croatian Badnjak and Bulgarian Budnik when someone types it in to Wikipedia? I just don't want you to get all revert edit on me, so I'll ask first. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Malleus explained to you is quite clear, and no further discussion is needed here. The paragraph of the lead that you keep removing is nothing "verbatim", but a summary of the "Public celebration" section (see WP:LEAD), an important part of the article. Since you've done that for the second time, your actions may now be characterized as vandalism. You seem to be already involved in an edit war with a Serbian user on the Uskoci article. Vladimir (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment on this because Jesuislafete asked me, and I've noticed above that we've started to abandon the assumption of good faith - which is a real pity for Christmas time :) Firstly, it's always good to be reminded that this is the English Wikipedia and that it's aimed at a global English-speaking audience. If there exist two things under the same foreign name, the policy is that they either get described in the single article if they're similar enough, or they get disambiguated. But no matter which of these options is used, the policy to avoid undue weight still applies. For the benefit of English readers, it seems to me that the problem boils down to deciding whether the three South Slavonic traditions named badnjak are sufficiently different to warrant each its own article, or if they can all fit in the same one. Based on my reading of the current article text, they seem to be able to all get along just fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

As of 2009 until the end of the 21st century there is a difference of 13 days between the two calendars, and so 24 December in the julian calendar—Christmas Eve—corresponds to 6 January 2009 in the Gregorian calendar used in the west.

How about simplifying the first part of this sentence, and instead of "as of 2009 until the end of the 21st century" simply state "currently"? I wouldn't hint in this article to the whole chronology of differences between the two calenders. The second "2009" would be also deleted, but I would add "of the following year" after "6 January" for more precision. When you say that 24 December corresponds to 6 January technically speaking this may mean of the same year. VVVladimir (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "currently" is that it ages, depending on when the article was written, and is the sort of thing that FA reviewers will likely object to. I think you're right though, that it needs to be made clearer that the Julian calendar is 13 days ahead of the Gregorian calendar. On the other hand I'm beginning to wonder if this is really all that important after all, as it's the same day whatever date it's considered to be. Without thinking about, I'd originally thought it was like Easter, celebrated on different days in east and west, but that's not the case. So what about dropping this altogether? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it would be the best. After all, this article has quite a specific subject, and filling it with that info on calendars and their diffs is rather superfluous. Maybe then some tweaking of the introductory sentence Tradition dictates that the badnjak ceremony... should be done. VVVladimir (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the badnjak ceremony begins on Christmas Eve, but there are are many regional variations surrounding the details.

How about Traditionally, the badnjak rituals begin on Christmas Eve, but... or something like that. It might be better to use the plural "rituals" because there are several segments, as felling, bringing in and laying on the fire, burning through, and the ritual with polaznik on Xmas Day. Also there are those various accompanying smaller practices. I'm not sure that that all could be covered under the term of just one ceremony. Though the public celebration could be named as just one ceremony. VVVladimir (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prizes for guessing when this should be on the main page

~~Dec 25~~ Gah! Jan 6...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Congrats to all, fantastic example of what WP is all about :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a wonderful cooperation with you and Malleus, with a wonderful result :-) VVVladimir (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb

The badnjak is a log brought into the house and placed on the fire on the evening of Christmas Eve, a central tradition in Serbian Christmas celebrations. The tree from which the badnjak is cut, preferably a young and straight oak, is ceremonially felled early on the morning of the Eve. The felling, preparation, bringing in, and laying on the fire, are surrounded by elaborate rituals, with many regional variations. The burning of the log is accompanied by prayers that the coming year brings food, happiness, love, luck, and riches. It commemorates the fire that—according to folk tradition—the shepherds of Bethlehem built in the cave where Jesus Christ was born, to warm him and his mother throughout the night. Scholars regard the ceremony as inherited from the old Slavic religion. As most Serbs today live in towns and cities, the badnjak is often represented by a cluster of oak twigs with which the home is decorated on Christmas Eve. Since the early 1990s, the Serbian Orthodox Church has, together with local communities, organized public celebrations on the Eve in which the badnjak plays a central role.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Please keep in mind that the blurb should consist of one paragraph with maximum 1200 characters (together with spaces and markup). Vladimir (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright. Nothing is jumping out and saying, "fix me"....Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian only? o_O

The same custom (in various regional varieties) happens to be practiced by several other neighboring South Slavic people, who - guess what, happen to call it by exactly the same name (because they all speak the same language!). It's ludicrous to claim that there is sth inherently "Serbian" in it. I was gonna contribute the etymology of this interesting word (ancient Germanic < Middle Latin borrowing), but I don't want to add to some pan-Serbian propaganda. Very sad that this article wasn't scrutinized enough before it made to the front page. Lesson to remember: Never blindly trust Balkanic people when it comes to history and always ask for a second opinion on everything, esp. from their "arch-enemies". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The customs practiced by the neighboring peoples aren't exactly the same, the name often isn't exactly the same (Bulgarian name is badnik), and anyway some of this is already in the article (see Badnjak#Similar European traditions). This article is about the Serbian traditions, and there is nothing ludicrous in claiming that Serbian traditions are inherently Serbian. Feel free to write the articles about these other traditions, and if there is enough material, they could eventually be merged into a master article.

By the way, that etymology from ancient Germanic sounds very suspicious on several levels and it would indeed be better not to put it in the article. Nikola (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I say it was exactly the same ? Even the article itself admits that there is significant regional variations across Serbia, BiH and Montenegro (and Montengerins are all Serbs, right, just that they don't know it?). Great deal of described customs are practiced by other Slavic people in same or very similar manner. And I'm not talking about Bulgarian badnik but of badnjak: it is a Serbo-Croatian word spoken, accented and inflected in exactly the same way by 10+ million non-Serbs.

If this article is about Serbian traditions, why it is not termed Serbian badnjak instead? Why should Serbian customs of badnjak get the [[badnjak]] article, and other ones [[Croatian badnjak]], [[Bosnian badnjak]] etc. ?

The point is that this custom in no way exclusive Serbian. It's an ancient paganic custom that fused with Judaistic mythology giving rise to modern Christianity. When this custom originated there were no "Serbs", "Croats" etc. - there were just Slavic tribes, and the beliefs and customs spread irrespective of modern-day concept of nationality. The article should be anational synthetic treatment of the custom on the South Slavic area.

On what grounds is the Germanic etymology suspicious? The current etymology of the word being inherited from PIE *bʰudʰ-n- "bottom" is simply plainly wrong. Somebody didn't read the apparently cited Watkins 1995: 461 careful enough (the part where it says "...Serbo-Croatian bȁdnjāk..", quite skillfully converted to Serbian in the related paragraph of this article!). For once, the Slavic word for "bottom" *dъno is already inherited from (what Toporov claims to be the variant metathesized form of that stem) *dʰubʰ-n-os (that Watkins also mentions as "recurring"). The whole connection with ancient IE dragon-slaying theme is absurd, and the assumption that it it's a singular reflex in Slavic of the variant stem that can be found nowhere else (as opposed to the other one which is preserved in a myriad of cognate semantically related words: *duplja "hollow", *dupa, *dupina "hole" etc.). The connection with "Python" is extremely fringy and can be found nowhere else. According to the standard sources Vedic *budhnás < *bʰudʰnós < *bʰudʰmnós, genitive singular of *bʰudʰmen- "bottom", with clear cognates in Ancient Greek (πυθμήν) and Germanic. Toporov is simply hallucinating, and the attempt to present this primitive custom as some ancient relic of dragon-slaying PIE religion is preposterous. And it gets much more clear when you compare the actual cognates from other Slavic languages: Russian/Ukrainian бо́дня, Slovenian *bedènj, Czech bedna, Polish bednia etc., all pointing to Common Slavic *bъdьnь, but nowhere does it have the Serbo-Croatian meaning of "yule log" (I suggest you check them out for yourself if you don't believe), which is obvious secondary in origin. Furthermore, if you look badanj up in some comprehensive dictionary (I suggest Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика), you'll see the original meaning. Instead, Common Slavic *bъdьnь < Proto-Slavic *budin- via Germanic from Middle Latin butina "tub, barrel, vessel" (in vulgar Latin pronunciation voiced as *[budina]). That explanation is perfectly acceptable both formally (in terms of sound changes) and semantically. Nothing to do with slaying serpents from the "water depths". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If this article is about Serbian traditions, why it is not termed Serbian badnjak instead?" Very simple. Because until someone sits down and writes an article on, say, the Bulgarian Badnjak tradition there's no need to disambiguate this one. It's no conspiracy to hijack anything, it's just the way that wikipedia policy works. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy that promotes such fallacious naming. You're simply making up imaginary rules. If this is supposed to be article on Serbian badnjak traditions, then it should be relocated to [[Serbian badnjak]]. Otherwise it must be a cross-cultural coverage of all badnjak South Slavic traditions. And as for the "hijacking" - it's very well underway AFAICS by several Serbian nationalists. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you talk in term of "arch-enemies" I think underlines just what the problem is with the Balkans. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just several observations on I.S.'s post:

Even the article itself admits that there is significant regional variations across Serbia, BiH and Montenegro — If I was so unreasonable as to include all the variety of the Serbs' customs and practices connected with the badnjak that can be found in the multitude of the Serbian sources on this subject, this would be an unwieldy article that probably no reader would bother to read through. Its size now is about the optimum, and it is well rounded—after all,it was promoted to FA status as such. Reading the cited work of Marko Dragic, it can be concluded that the Croatian customs are rather diverse as well (both from the Serbian customs, and, to some measure, among themselves), and can justify a separate article.
It cannot be separate article because this article is called badnjak not Serbian badnjak or Croatian badnjak. This article does not cover any single badnjak tradition. Most of the badnjak traditions that this article describes and that are practiced by Serbs are also practiced by other South Slavic people. There is nothing inherently "Serbian" in them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and Montengerins are all Serbs, right, just that they don't know it? — We don't need those that don't know it ;-) Nowhere in the article is it stated or implied that all Montengerins are Serbs.
AFAICS the article mentions Montenegro on multiple occasions in context when apparently dealing with Serbian customs. In other words, some kind of apprent "Serbodom" of Montenegro seems to be implied. Since ethnic Serbs are not a majority in the Montenegro according to the last census, it would be more proper to drop that regional appellation and use "Montengrin Serbs" instead. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnian badnjak — I suppose this should be Bosniaks. As far as I know, Bosniaks are Muslims, and have nothing to do with Christmas or badnjak.
No, Bosnians. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ancient paganic custom that fused with Judaistic mythology giving rise to modern Christianity. — To claim that modern Christianity developed from fusing a yule-log tradition with Judaistic mythology is…strange.
When this custom originated there were no "Serbs", "Croats" etc. - there were just Slavic tribes — Originally, Serbs and Croats were Slavic tribes.
Modern-day self-styled Croats and Serbs have absolutely nothing to do with 7th century Xrъvate or Serboi, despite popular misconception. Nations that we perceive them today were for the most part fabricated in the 19-th century. Genetics and history confirms this: in 99% of pre-19th-century writings the only ethnical designation was simply "Slav" (meaning "that which speaks Slavic"). It's wrong and misleading to insinuate that these customs are inherited along ethnic lines, because they were not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and the assumption that it it's a singular reflex in Slavic of the variant stem that can be found nowhere else (as opposed to the other one which is preserved in a myriad of cognate semantically related words: *duplja "hollow", *dupa, *dupina "hole" etc.) — Religious terms are a somewhat distinct class of words.
What on earth are you talking about? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with "Python" is extremely fringy and can be found nowhere else. — Python and πυθμήν obviously have the same root.
I was referring to the connection between the Vedic theme of "serpent from the depths", Ancient Greek "Python" and the apparent "bottomness" of badnjak, which is bizarre and cannot be held on etymological grounds. None of the recent (published in the last 50 years) etymological dictionaries supports this theory, and Toporov is simply hallucinating. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole connection with ancient IE dragon-slaying theme is absurd … Toporov is simply hallucinating, and the attempt to present this primitive custom as some ancient relic of dragon-slaying PIE religion is preposterous — Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but from wikipedia's viewpoint this is OR, just as the preceding three points. Calvert Watkins calls Toporov's method elegant.
This is not my opinion, but a comment on Toporov's theory. The derivational facts I mentioned can be verified in most of the standard books on the subject. The theory of 5-000 year or relic of PIE religion is extremely fringy and obscure. It's quite indicative that much more down-to-earth explanations are conveniently ignored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russian/Ukrainian бо́дня, Slovenian *bedènj, Czech bedna, Polish bednia etc., all pointing to Common Slavic *bъdьnь, but nowhere does it have the Serbo-Croatian meaning of "yule log" — These languages can not have a word for "yule log", because no kind of yule log is known to those peoples. Not even in the oldest texts about them is any kind of yule log mentioned; though in a medieval text about Poles a custom similar to the polaznik (the first visitor on Christmas) is recorded. Btw, the polaznik striking the badnjak to make sparks fly, is one of the exclusively Serbian customs.
You seem to have problems comprehending what I was saying. I was saying that the cognate word (equivalent of badanj, inherited from the same Proto-Slavic word) in those languages does not mean "yule log", as it does in Serbo-Croatian. That means that the semantic shift towards "yule log" in Serbo-Croatian is of secondary origin, and that that meaning couldn't have originally existed for the Proto-Slavic etymon, let alon for the PIE root. Which renders the whole "serpent-slaying" theory ludicrous. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be as clear as possible so that you have no problems comprehending what I am saying. Here you cite the etymology of the Russian/Ukrainian бо́дня, Slovenian *bedènj, Czech bedna, Polish bednia, etc., that ultimately stem from the Middle Latin "butina", and you state that "badanj" is a cognate of those words (it's quite obvious: regular phonetic parallelism coupled with virtually the same meaning [a badanj can mean a large vessel for crushing grapes, or a tube for conveying water to a water wheel, depending on the regional use]). Then you say that "badnjak" (semantically quite different from "tub", "barrel", or "vessel") is a word cognate to "badanj", "бо́дня", etc. Now, everyone can see that "badanj" and "badnjak" are very similar words, and that apparently "badnjak" might be derived from "badanj". However, that etymology of "badanj", "бо́дня", etc., as you cited it, does not explicitely mention "badnjak" as one of the words derived ultimately from "butina", and more directly from *bъdьnь. It is apparently you who a priori presumes that "badnjak" must be cognate with "badanj", "бо́дня", etc.

I won't argue that this presumption is either right or wrong, but I just want to remind that an apparent similarity between two things does not necessarily mean that they are related. And if that dictionary you cited does not explicitely states that "badnjak" is one of the words ultimately derived from "butina", then putting that in an article would be OR. All your other conclusions here are based on that presumption that "badnjak" is cognate to "badanj", "бо́дня", etc.: That means that the semantic shift [which would not exist if that presumption is wrong] towards "yule log" in Serbo-Croatian is of secondary origin, and that that meaning couldn't have originally existed for the Proto-Slavic etymon, let alon for the PIE root. Which renders the whole "serpent-slaying" theory ludicrous. Therefore, they are also OR (no offence intended). Vladimir (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying Vladimire, that badnjak is not a transparent derivation of the word badanj ? :) It most certainly is, for the original oblique stem (without the "fleeting a") is preserved in the phrase badnji dan (and also badnje veče...), unambiguously pointing to the later added nominalizing suffix -ak.

Anyhow, I did some research on the etymology of this word (couldn't do it before due to holidays and stuff), and there are actually several very interesting explanations for this badnji. Oh, and don't worry, I've got plenty of refs by the most illustrious (dead and living :) SC etymologists... I still need to check one source at the library before making the changes tho. Stay tuned a day or so :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, badnji and badnjak are doubtlessly related, and the etymology of one of these words would also be the etymology of the other, but it seems to me that the root of badanj and the root of badnji are homonyms. If, as you say, badanj and badnji share the same root and this is not a case of homonymy, then I am very curious how such a semantic shift happened, that the word meaning "Christmas Eve" (or its pagan predecessor) got to be derived from a root meaning "tub, barrel, vessel" of Germanic origin. Isn't such a shift strange to you? But let's wait and see what your sources have to say about it. Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pretty hard coincidence don't you think :) I still have to check one dictionary (the "Gluhak") at the library next week (didn't manage so far, sorry, and that thick book is way too expensive to be bought!) but so far, this is what I've found:

Skok claims in his Etimologijski rječnik... that this adjectival badnji is unrelated to the word badanj at all (which he treats separately), and continues the Proto-Slavic root that also yielded the verb bd(j)eti (< Common Slavic *bъděti, with medial *-ъ- being then vocalized to -a instead of being lost). He claims that the term itself is a calque of the Christian term in contemporary medieval Latin known as vigilae (comparing it to French Veille de Noël "Christmas Eve"). The coincidence in meaning between those two terms is striking, and he makes a pretty strong case on this.
Matasović, in the new "Croatian etymological dictionary" that is being compiled, data for the letter b being available here, claims

badnjak < Od prasl. *bъdьnjь, v. badanj. Veza je badnja i badnjaka u običaju paljenja hrastova duba na Badnjak, što predstavlja ostatak poganskoga slavenskog obreda koji je uklopljen u kršćanske svetkovine. Ta etimološka veza pretpostavlja značenjski razvitak ‘drvena posuda’ > ‘drvo, dub’ > ‘komad drveta’ što nekim lingvistima nije uvjerljivo. Stoga se pomišlja i na izvođenje iz ie. korijena *dʰewb-, *dʰwebʰ-). (usp. got. diups ‘dubok’, lit. dubùs). U slavenskome bi valjalo pretpostaviti metatezu *dʰub- > *bъd- a zatim izvođenje slav. sufiksom *-ьno-) (usp. slovač. dijal. bedno ‘dno’). Izvorno bi značenje bilo ‘panj, dno odrezanog stabla’. U svakom slučaju neposredna veza između skr. budhnyà ‘koji leži na dnu’ (u Rg-vedi epitet mitološke zmije) i hrv. badnjaka (Gluhak) ne može se uspostaviti, jer bi se prasl. *d) izgubilo ispred *n (kao u *dъno) od *dʰubno). U značenju ‘badnja večer, dan prije Božića’ na riječ bȁdnjāk (kao i slov. bâdnik) zacijelo je utjecao i glagol bъděti ‘bdijeti’.

In other words, Matasović completely dismisses Toporov's connection on quite firm grounds. He also gives the semantic shift explanation that you've been looking for :)

So basically my idea is to list all the theories chronologically, mentioning also the etymology of badanj (from Germanic source per Vasmer and Matasović), giving newer sources slightly more prominence. Given that some 1-2 kilobytes of data could be written on this, I'd also suggest moving it to separate ==Etymology== section directly after the article lead. As I said, I still need to check with one dictionary, which will do definitely on Monday, when I hope to have the draft prepared (unless somebody is quicker than me..). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hard coincidence? If such a prominent etymologist as Petar Skok, whom you cite, found no connection between badanj and badnji, then obviously he regarded the similarity between these two words as an ordinary coincidence, not as a "hard coincidence" ;-) Or, as I said, an example of homonymy of roots. As for the connection between badnji and bdeti, it was proposed much earlier by Vuk Karadžić (see Karadžić, 1841).

And now Matasović... "wooden vessel" > "tree, oak" > "a piece of wood"... and then > "badnjak" (a religious term, denoting the log that is on Christmas Eve ceremonially burned on the domestic hearth)... Matasović himself is fair enough to mention that this etymology is not convincing to some linguists (and, no, this semantic shift explanation is not convincing to me).

However, the etymology cited in the following three sentences, comparable in some respect with Toporov's etymology (the same PIE root), is quite convincing.

In the next sentence, Matasović apparently opposes the "Gluhak", but this opposition is not quite applicable to Toporov, since the latter did not propose a direct connection between "budhnya" and "badnjak" (which should probably mean a Proto-Slavic borrowing from Indo-Iranian, as is the case with e.g. "bog"), but a common PIE root *bhudh-n-, with independent developments of those two words from that root. Though, in that case, I'm aware of the problem of the presence of "ь" between "d" and "n" (because otherwise "d" would have been deleted before "n").

Placing a separate "Etymology" section right after the lead would mean, in my opinion, a disruption of smooth running of the article. Its primary subject is all the richness and variety of the customs and practices connected with the badnjak, and it runs like a story, chronologically, through Christmas Eve and Day. Other theories about the etymology would be best added in "Interpretation". If a separate section for that would be made, it should be placed after "Interpretation". Note the fact that this is a featured article, and it should remain so. Vladimir (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead, Common Slavic *bъdьnь < Proto-Slavic *budin- via Germanic from Middle Latin butina "tub, barrel, vessel" (in vulgar Latin pronunciation voiced as *[budina]). That explanation is perfectly acceptable both formally (in terms of sound changes) and semantically. — Semantically, it's illogical that "badnjak" is derived from a word meaning "tub", "barrel", or "vessel", because the badnjak is a log, never hollowed out in any way, and it would probably be some kind of sacrilege to lay a tub, barrel, or vessel on the fire instead of a log. Formally, derivation from pie. *bhudh-n- is perfect. Anyway, this butina etymology does not mention "badnjak", and to state that "badnjak" is derived in that way is also an OR, so not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Vladimir (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, you cannot postulate PIE words ad-hoc to satisfy one's supremacist religious theories. If the word did originally mean "tub, barrel, vessel", than it's 99.999% derivation of Vulgar Latin word (also borrowed to Germanic, Romance etc.) of the same meaning, which is also formally compatible, rather than from some imaginary PIE word to which it is not semantically compatible. As for the OR: the butina etymology of Common Slavic *bъdьnь you can verify in e.g. Vasmer/Trubačev's dictionary of Russian (with references). ---Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say. I wish I could do more research, but I have been extremely ill and could not. But I will definitely contribute more to this page when I am better.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "supremacist religious theories" are you (I.S.) talking about? That's very...strange. The PIE etymology of "badnjak" in the article is cited from a work of Calvert Watkins, professor Emeritus of linguistics and the classics at Harvard University and professor-in-residence at UCLA, who in turn cited Vladimir Toporov, who was a leading Russian philologist. You wrote: If the word did originally mean "tub, barrel, vessel", than it's 99.999% derivation of Vulgar Latin word. What if it did not? In the above post this was your main presumption, where you used it without an if. We cannot be 100% sure that "badanj" and "badnjak" are cognate.

As for the semantical compatibility of PIE. *bhudh-n- and "badnjak", it might be useful that you read more carefully the cited page of Watkins's work, including the footnotes. (I'm not an unreserved supporter of this theory either, but also far from such an inexplicably bitter and fierce opponent of it as you appear to be. The theory explicitely deals with "badnjak", and the authors are respectable scholars. That's the only reason why I included it). As is obvious from what I wrote in the previous point, the OR objection does not apply to the etymology of *bъdьnь (meaning "tub, barrel, vessel") from butina, but to the connection of "badnjak" to this etymology (see the previous point). Vladimir (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Watkins simply mentions Toporov's fringy paper from the 1974, there are are newer and more relevant sources (Toporov was not really a top Slavic etymologist...). Currently article makes it sound as if it's some ancient Indo-European serpent-slaying custom preserved to this day only among the Serbs, which is quite far from the truth. It needs to be toned down and given proper context. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New theories are welcome, if they are from relevant sources, but I also wouldn't call Toporov's theory (supported by Watkins) irrelevant.

Well, I've looked in that paragraph to see what could have caused such an impression. I've changed the first sentence to past time, so now it's clear that the idea of serpent-slaying is not behind the felling of the badnjak today. Is it OK with you now? The rest is a short summary of Toporov's reconstruction, with an additional explanation where Mladi Bozic and Stari Badnjak actually come from. I don't see what could be toned down there. Vladimir (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic calendar

Catholic calendar in Croatian (for 2010) [1].
P 24. BADNJAK, Adam i Eva
Google result [2] for "Badnjak u Hrvata" (Badnjak among Croats). 113,000 results.
There's a page in Croatian [3] Božić u Hrvata, Badnjak (Christmas among Croats, section Badnjak).
Therefore I've made changes in the text. Kubura (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatian, the word "badnjak" means "Christmas Eve", and so almost all of these pages are about Christmas Eve, not about the log. The very article you cite says that the customs are today abandoned, and while they existed they were apparently different from Serbian customs (three logs in general and not one, doesn't have to be oak). The article right now is nonsensical - are you really trying to say that "as many people today live in towns and cities, the badnjak is often represented by a cluster of oak twigs with brown leaves attached" - in Croatia? Nikola (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Christmas Eve would be the proper noun Badnjak with capital letter B, itself named after the common noun badnjak, which means "log" in "Croatian language", just as does in "Serbian language" :D

...and that is exactly the case in most Kubura's Google results: "Badnji dan ili Badnjak je bogat božićnim običajima", "Na Badnjak", "Večer prije Badnjaka"... Nikola (talk)

Kubura's search results are misleading and no evidence at all. Google is not a valid encyclopaedic source. Drawing conclusions from Kubura's search results in no way invalidates the statements I wrote above refuting your claim that there is no connection between Badnjak and badnjak. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for proving my point about Kubura's search results! And I never claimed something like that. Nikola (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether customs are abandoned or not is irrelevant - they're certainly not somehow exclusively "ethnically Serbian": they've been practiced for centuries by Croats, as well as likely other South Slavs, described in historical records, and who knows (I don't) - perhaps still being in use in some godforsaken villages?!

There exists something called trans-cultural diffusion, and so Croats living close to Serbs will adopt Serbian customs, and these customs could still be reasonably described as "ethnically Serbian"; and by the way customs adopted in such a way would have a propensity to disappear among Croats more so than original Croatian customs. Nikola (talk)

This custom is pre-Christian and pagan in origin. The very fact that the word badnjak semantically developed in different ways in varous South Slavic peoples (not only Croats and Serbs, but Bulgarian too) shows that it precedes 9th century Christianization. And the fact that it's confined only to South Slavic people also shows something: that there indeed was cross-cultural diffusion. But we all know that everyone's descended from Serbs, and everyone is a Serb whether they like it or not..right? Little less Šešeljevian propaganda would be appreciated..

The reason why the custom eventually disappeared faster in Croatian tradition is simple: it integrated less in the newly-established religious doctrine. It can hardly be a coincidence that the word for "Christmas Eve" in Croatian Catholic tradition is exactly the same as the word for an object for a particular religous purpose in the Serbian Orthodox tradition practiced on the (calendar-wise) the same date. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of logs - wow that's suddenly the only relevant factor? :) AFAICS, the custom varies significantly regionally, and it literally cries for cross-cultural description. The article should be extended to incorporate variant badnjak traditions of all the South Slavic peoples, describing various way the pre-Christian custom(s) developed into modern and historically attested ones. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, please write this #@?$! cross-cultural description! I would like to see it, and I would include all the European peoples who have similar customs. Don't think that you have written it just by replacing "Serbian" with "Serbian and Croatian". Nikola (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is pretty obscure topics and I'm still gathering literature :) Which is apparently very thin and rare on the subject, as it appears. I'm more interested in the etymology of this word than to the custom itself, and will focus the efforts on that particular issue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badnjak among South Slavs

What was problem here [4]? Kubura (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian is not recognized as a language by many people. There are distinctions between Serbian and Croatian and it's worth noting because their names for the tree in question are different I believe. Keep them separate 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]