О судбини ћирилице према књижевним и научним сведочанствима

Abstract

У раду се на темељу научних и књижевноумјетничких текстова прозног, драмског и поетског подстила говори о најзначајнијим историјским и актуелним питањима српске ћирилице. Циљ рада није строго научна, минуциозна лингвистичка и(ли) лингвостилистичка анализа научних и књижевних текстова који свједоче о судбини ћирилице, већ да се на основу њихових диференцијалних обиљежја проговори о томе шта се са овим писмом дешавало кроз вијекове. У фокусу је, дакле, саоднос, с једне стране, текстова који махом на чињеничан и научнопопуларан начин освјетљавају дата питања и, с друге стране, књижевноумјетничких у којима налазимо потврде датих чињеница, резултата и ставова.

In this paper, taking scientific, on one side, and belle-letters texts in prose, drama and poetic styles, on the other, we explain the most significant historical and modern issues of Serbian Cyrillic script. In the focus is the relationship between the texts which factually and in the popular scientific way expose the matter, and the belle-letters texts, in which we find the confirmation of the given facts, results and opinions. The conducted analysis shows that there exists a high degree of compatibility between the analyzed texts. In the texts of both functional styles we find the confirmation that the Cyrillic script is a fundamental component of the Serbian national and spiritual identity, one of the basic features which was always under attack in the attempt to weaken the historical consciousness of Serbian people. In the context of officially and publicly expressed tendencies to ban the use of Cyrillic and its expulsion for the sake of other scripts, there has emerged its symbolic value. In that sense, the Cyrillic script was and will remain the touchstone for both the individuals and the whole people, as testified in the belle-letters’: to be silent in Latin, to speak in Latin, to point to Latin, think and speak Latin, but write in Cyrillic, while the lexemes, built for the purpose of fierce polemics, such as a Cyrillist (orig. “ћириличар”. m./ “ћириличарка” f.), Cyrillilcide, a Latinist (orig. “лати- ничарка”, f.), beside already existing the Latinist (m.), Latinization, with the expansion of the semantic structure, most obviously portray the social context characterized by disbelief and intolerance of ones towards the others – of Cyrillists towards the Latinists, and of Latinists towards the Cyrillists, having that a Latinist in not only the one that writes in Latin script, but, inevitably, advocates for the suppression of Cyrillic, in the same way as a Cyrillist does not solely write in Cyrillic.