Talk:Croatian language/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Dialectal map
I must've said this twice already: the supposed "dialectal map" is completely out of touch with reality and is wildly inaccurate. The extent of the Kajkavian and Chakavian-speaking areas is vastly exaggerated. Especially Chakavian, which is practically extinct (a tragedy, of course, but a real one). The map should be removed forthwith, it is highly misleading. -- Director (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a more correct map? --Taivo (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Probably not. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- If there isn't a more accurate map, then a map that is mostly accurate is better than no map at all. --Taivo (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. Depends on how "mostly accurate" the map is. One example that struck me was that the current map depicts the capital as speaking Kajkavian. The actual state of affairs is that the city speaks Shtokavian with some few Kajkavian elements - I dare say, to a man (in varying degrees).
- If there isn't a more accurate map, then a map that is mostly accurate is better than no map at all. --Taivo (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt it. Probably not. -- Director (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The second-largest city (Split) is also depicted as Chakavian-speaking. So is Zadar. This is also completely incorrect. The city speaks Shtokavian with some few Chakavian elements (very few, noone even says "Cha?" anymore, for example). Down in the southern blue area, Chakavian is almost exclusively in the islands, and even there do you hear it very rarely.
- So there you have about half the people of Croatia, listed erroneously as Kajkavian or Chakavian speakers. A person might look at the map and conclude that, when he goes on his Dalmatian vacation, he better buy a Chakavian phrasebook. A businessman might feel he ought to brush up on his Kajkavian to impress his Zagreb business partners (who most likely never spoke the dialect in their lives). As things are now it looks almost as if only the countryside speaks Shtokavian - which could not be farther from the facts. The map is misleading, that's what bothers me. -- Director (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dialectal maps are commonly drawn on the basis of the original (substratum) dialects of the area. Everywhere in the modern world, dialects that weren't lucky enough to be selected as the basis (Dachsprache) of the standard language are in retreat: first, there is a level of diglossia where the dialect is spoken at home and the standard in school and formal settings, and then more and more elements from the prevailing standard are gradually intruding into the colloquial, leaving a mixture. For a linguist, that approach to the map kind of goes without saying. Only recently, in the West (Britain in particular), there is a certain revival of local dialects in the media. However, that does not change the fact that the Split is basically Chakavian area and Zagreb Kajkavian. We could insert a brief clarification (e.g. "Map of dialects originally spoken..."), but that leaves open the definition of "originally". I'm inclined not to change anything, but if you insist, I wouldn't mind. No such user (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's the labelling of the map that is a problem. When we deal with Native American languages, for example, we provide maps for the original extent of the languages, not for the current area where they are spoken (which would be a sequence of tiny dots at specific addresses in an otherwise English-speaking town). Perhaps that's what the dialect map is really intending to show--the extent of the dialects at some earlier point in time before they began to be subsumed by Croatian/Serbo-Croatian. I find maps extremely helpful in language articles so that I can get a visual idea about where X and Y are spoken. Perhaps if we change the label to the map it would be more acceptable? If Chakavian is so endangered, then a current map wouldn't be any more informative than a map of where Shoshoni speakers are located in the contemporary US. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- But how would we label it? By my estimate this is the situation from about 60-70 years ago.. but that's just my estimate. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- When dealing with Native American (or Australian) languages, we usually label the maps along the lines of "Historical extent of ..." or else have a prominent footnote attached that says the map shows the range at white contact. Perhaps "Historical extent of Croatian dialects" or a footnote that clearly states that this is a historical range and that the modern non-standard dialects are being replaced through their range. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- But how would we label it? By my estimate this is the situation from about 60-70 years ago.. but that's just my estimate. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's the labelling of the map that is a problem. When we deal with Native American languages, for example, we provide maps for the original extent of the languages, not for the current area where they are spoken (which would be a sequence of tiny dots at specific addresses in an otherwise English-speaking town). Perhaps that's what the dialect map is really intending to show--the extent of the dialects at some earlier point in time before they began to be subsumed by Croatian/Serbo-Croatian. I find maps extremely helpful in language articles so that I can get a visual idea about where X and Y are spoken. Perhaps if we change the label to the map it would be more acceptable? If Chakavian is so endangered, then a current map wouldn't be any more informative than a map of where Shoshoni speakers are located in the contemporary US. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
it's quite interesting to see that you guys are still paranoid about croatian nationalists (as if its bad to care about your nation). and i really don't understand what's the big deal with acknowledging the fact that language is a sensitive subject for croats and that they object to using serbocroatian because it was used in a long campaign of linguistic violence against their native tongue. regardless of the fact that the entire continuum between bregana and šar planina is usually considered as one language. the average joe does not care about purely technical, linguistic matters but about what he sees and hears on a daily basis - product declarations are written in croatian and serbian, respectively, job offers are posted for native Croatian and Serbian speakers separately, translations for movies are provided separately and the list goes on. by making this article more in line with the articles about bosnian and serbian, so as to bring them all closer under the umbrella of serbocroatian, you are creating a false impression that the latter exists in the cognitive space of native speakers and that its use is generally accepted - which simply isn't true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.180.194 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- We do acknowledge Croatians' sensitivities in the article. That's, however, no reason to deny the linguistic reality either. And it is easy to write everything separately in 'Croatian' and 'Serbian'—just write it in the Latin script and the Cyrillic script. --JorisvS (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Linguistics have dominant and dissenting opinions on what constitutes a language, there is no apodictic "correct" or "incorrect" point of view, contrary to physics or mathematics, for instance -- the carefully crafted article on "Serbo-Croatian" does its best to paint a different picture, however. As to your last point, Serbian is written in the Latin script as well and not in Cyrillic exclusively, but I assume you knew that already. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
"Is"
Could someone tell me why is Taivo changing the sentence "Croatian is a standardized form of Serbo-Croatian" to "Croatian is Serbo-Croatian language" but he doesn't do that for Bosnian and Serbian?Scrosby85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Its because Croatian includes Kajkavian and Chakavian Serbo-Croatian dialects, and the others don't. I get the idea, but I don't know if it makes sense to make the distinction. Serbian has Torlakian, does it not? -- Director (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's a thorny situation, but Torlakian has not generally been considered one of the major component dialects of the non-Slovenian West South Slavic complex. In addition, modern Croatians "claim" Chakavian and Kajkavian as components of modern Croatian in a way that Serbians don't "claim" Torlakian. But Kwami probably has a better explanation. It's a difficult situation where A+B+C+D = "Serbo-Croatian" in a linguistic sense (D = "Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian, vernacular Shtokavian"), but where "Croatian" = A+B+D, "Serbian" = C+D, "Bosnian" = D. --Taivo (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Taivo but that is the most stupid explanation i have ever heard...So what if Croatian includes Kajkavian and Chakavian i don't get it?Where is the difference between "is serbocroatian language" and "is a standardized register of sc language"...Second this sentence "is a standardized register of serbocroatian language" was on Wikipedia for almost 2 years and then somebody comes and decide that it will be "is a serbocroatian" language...Sorry but that is very insulting to make exception just for Croatian and not for Bosnian and Serbian...Those three languages are all part of hybrid SerboCroatian language...So for all three languages must have three same sentences...Croatian will enter in EU as his own language and for Serbian and Bosnian is not even sure under what names will enter...I propose that untin Croatia joins EU all three languages be treated as same..I don't have nothing that Croatian be treated as SerboCroatian but annoys me when somebody (one or two people like Taivo) think that they know better from the Croatians,Serbians and Bosnians...Leave it the way it was been because this sentence has no head and tail...Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Guys i have no intention to make fights with you.But it simply isn't right to make exception for Croatian and not for Bosnian and Serbian...You changed that just because Kajkavian and Chakavian are part of Croatian?!They are also part of SerboCroatian...Ijust propose that all three sentences be the same for Croatian,Bosnian and Serbian...If Croatian "is serbocroatian language" then Bosnian and Serbian must also be becausse you are making people think that serbian and bosnian are different from Croatian because of not the same sentences.I see that more people on this page complained about the same situation..Take that into account not just ban people!Think about it...Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I made one revert on this subject and kwami reported me.Two guys have monopol on this subject and they just report people who don't agree with them.This is right at all :( Scrosby85 12:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs)
- You have been reported for edit warring here. You have reverted twice in 24 hours on a page that is subject to WP:1RR. You don't understand what you're doing here, Scrosby85. You must build a consensus for any changes you make. The change from "a register" to "Serbo-Croatian" on this page was discussed a couple of months ago. Since Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed by Croats under the label "Croatian", then it is no longer a register of Shtokavian, but a label for what is otherwise called "Serbo-Croatian". "Standard Croatian" is a register of Shtokavian, but when Chakavian and Kajkavian are included in the label "Croatian", then it is more than a register. If you want to engage in a productive discussion with facts and leave your emotions and accusations at the door, then we might be able to work out some wording that preserves the linguistic facts. But if you are going to edit war, then that is not possible. --Taivo (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since you don't seem to understand what I talked about above, Scrosby85, I'll spell it out:
- Serbo-Croatian = Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian, Torlakian
- Shtokavian = vernacular Shtokavian, Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian
- "Croatian", as defined by Croats = Standard Croatian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, vernacular Shtokavian
- "Serbian", as defined by Serbs = Standard Serbian, vernacular Shtokavian
- "Bosnian", as defined by Bosniaks = Standard Bosnian, vernacular Shtokavian
- Torlakian is defined by Serbs as a dialect of Serbian, but by Croats as a separate Serbo-Croatian dialect, not tied to Serbian
- So, you see, the situations of "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" are anything but parallel. --Taivo (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since you don't seem to understand what I talked about above, Scrosby85, I'll spell it out:
Taivo you are very wrong..Croatian is a language who have three dialects...Chinese is official language in China and they have more then 50 dialects...You could write that Standard Croatian is part of SerboCroatian language and that Kajkavian and Chakavian are defined as dialects or something like that...This sentence "Croatian is SerboCroatian language" don't lead anywhere because it is not constructed well and it looks like child of 11 years old wrote it...It is very confusing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And also in Croatian law Shtokavian is official dialect in Croatian language...Kajkavian and Chakavian speaking people use Shtokavian in Public life..They only use Chakavian and Kajkavian at home...So if Shtokavian is official dialect and therefore language of Croatia it should be equal as Bosnian and Serbian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, Scrosby85, you don't know the facts clearly, especially reading your comment about Chinese. You don't seem to have any background in linguistics. And your comment about "official dialect" only refers to Standard Croatian, but I've made abundantly clear that Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed by Croats into the umbrella term "Croatian". This becomes clear when reading the archives of discussion for the pages I have mentioned above. --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And what linguistic background do u have?Who are you to tell me that i don't have a clue about lingustic?Some kind of expet who doesn't know what to wrote and then just erase "standardized register of SerboCroatian" and that's it..Thinks problem is solved..And whoever sys different he is blocked or reported...That's not the way my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
One more thing...You describe Croatian that it "is serbocroatian language" yet only 60% of Croats are native speakers of Shtokavian dialect...But on the other hand...85-90 Serbs and Bosniaks speak Shtokavian dialect and their languages are just "standardized register of SerboCroatian"...Where is the logic?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Personal thoughts on what SC is or isn't matters not at all, all that matters is what the English Reliable Sources say, and that is what the article reflects. This Talk Page is not for the endless, tiresome debate of nationalists in the Balkans who seem to hate each other - this the Talk Page for an encyclopedia article to discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of said article, period. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan...I know all of this..I'm not stupid...I'm not arguing or denying that Croatian is PART(not IS) of SerboCroatian...Im just saying that it is very confusing,not to say stupid to put sentence like "Croatian IS serbocroatian language"...It sounds very akward...I'm just saying that it would be better if it stays this way or to put that "Croatian is PART of SerboCroatian language"...I'm not nationalist and i don't hate anyone...I'm just saying that sentence what i reverted salt on open wound because bosnian and serbian articles stayed the same...Scrosby85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If u look at this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_standard_Bosnian,_Croatian_and_Serbian
You will see that is is all the same languages..No need to put Croatian aside and write confusing sentences and on other wikipedia article about languages it says different...You get my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Scrosby85, you just still don't get it at all. The situations of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are not parallel. Self-revert your change now that you know you violated WP:1RR. You are presenting no facts whatsoever to support your view. Zero. I've presented the facts on the ground, but you just keep ranting without any basis in linguistic science or fact. --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Taivo Once again!...An average man come to Croatian language sectionand see "Croatian is SerboCroatian language" then he goes to Serbian or Bosnian language section and he sees "Serbian/Bosnian is a standardized register of SerboCroatian language"...Now my question is what did u prove with that and how?Tell me please because you didn't do absolutely nothing with that sentence...If u go to link above what i posted it clearly says next:"Standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are different national variants and official registers of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language" So why changing this when on other wikipedia articles it clearly states different.The best way would be to put that sentence.I'm not trying to win this or something.Im just trying to be logic.Ok...Cheers mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- How many times must this be explained to you? The situations of "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" are not parallel when it comes to dialect coverage. And the argument WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a valid one in Wikipedia. While the standard registers of Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are nearly identical as being derived from Shtokavian, the inclusion of other dialects in the broader labels makes the three situations different (see above). --Taivo (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And how many times must i say to you that you didn't do anything with this?It is complicated as it is..Now you are changing Croatian but not Serbian or Bosnian...Who are you to decide that?Linguists all over the wold treat Serbian,Bosnian and Croatian as one language just you found something that just you know and you don't give up...And if someone try to say different you report him...Once again there is no need to make this confusing situtation over this issue more confusing by separating Croatian from Serbian and Bosnian so people get even more confused...I got here because my friend(from Norway!) on Youtube said me that he looked article about Croatian on Wikipedia and he asked why is it different from other three languages..Otherwise i wouldn't be here..Use your logic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again!You didn't do much with this sentence because to normal people who don't know much about languages from this area,when they come to language section they see from Croatian that "is the SC language" and then they go to Serbian section and see "is a standardized register of the SC language"...And what they conclude?Croatian is not standardized register of SC?Or that Serbian and Bosnian are not SC languages because of different sentences...You didn't explain anything with that sentence..use you head — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
So what now Taivo?You don't know what to say and you just ignore me?That is what you do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think he's ignoring you, as I have been, because this has devolved into a "Yes it is! —No it isn't!" argument, which is pointless. You have not made a convincing case for reverting the changes suggested by the last editor, who did make a convincing case. — kwami (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kwami's right. You've offered nothing of substance other than "Nuh-uh". WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have clearly asked what did he do with this sentence ...Please explain it to me...What does an average man concludes when he see sentence "Croatian is the SerboCroatian language" and when he goes to Serbian or Bosnian section language..Because 90% people doesn't get that i assure you...Just Taivo or whoever made this funny thing knows better then 90% linguists of the world who treat theses two languages as subgroup of SerboCroatian just like Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects..And he made that sentence because i will quote him:"Croats say that Kajkavian and Chakavian are part of Croatian language"?!.What kind of statement is that?I bet that 95% of Croatian citizens doesn't want their language to be called SerboCroatian.So if we look it that way you should remove SerboCroatian att first place... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're misquoting. It says "Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian language as spoken by Croats" (italics mine). Note the part that I've put in italics. That makes a huge difference. --JorisvS (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It makes huge differnce?Why?I just asked him if alot of lingusts in the world treat these languages as part of SerboCroatian standard then there is no need to say something else for one of these languages..When i asked Taivo why the sentence is constructed like that he said to me "Because Croats treat Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects as Croatian language"...So if he care about their opinion so much then he could even erase SerboCroatian because Croats would never say that they speak some SerboCroatian but Croatian...Croatian can just be PART of SerboCroatian because in all four countries they call their languages by their country.This thing is confusing even without this sentence.But Taivo and Kwami are acting like some big linguists who knows everything and they don't respect other opinion..Nobody agreed to this sentence yet they arecontinuing with it and ignore other opinion like they are ignoring mine and reporting others like they did last week... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The whole notion of a 'Croatian language', about which this article is, is a non-linguistic construction by Croats. That gives Croats' conception of it some weight (to within NPOV requirements, of course). That's why it must be said that Croats consider Kajkavian and Chakavian 'Croatian', even though this makes the whole notion of 'Croatian' paraphyletic. Do you like me to illustrate this?
- "Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian language" means that Croatian equals Serbo-Croatian (which is not true because 'Croatian' excludes 'Serbian' and 'Bosnian'). "Croatian is the Serbo-Croatian languages as spoken by Croats" means that Serbo-Croatian is only Croatian when it is spoken by an ethnic Croat. The latter is true because Kajkavian and Chakavian are considered 'Croatian' because its speakers are ethnic Croats, even though they have no relationship with the Shtokavian standardized register that is also called 'Croatian'. --JorisvS (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That would exclude any speaker who is not an ethnic Croat, but who speaks the language, or "variant," respectively. What do national minorities in Croatia (Italians in Istria, Hungarians in Međimurje or Koprivnica-Križevci) speak then, if what you wrote only applied to ethnic Croats? -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- If they speak "as" Croats, they're speaking Croatian. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then Joris' above statement is false, or at least inaccurate. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- If they speak "as" Croats, they're speaking Croatian. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- That would exclude any speaker who is not an ethnic Croat, but who speaks the language, or "variant," respectively. What do national minorities in Croatia (Italians in Istria, Hungarians in Međimurje or Koprivnica-Križevci) speak then, if what you wrote only applied to ethnic Croats? -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- It makes huge differnce?Why?I just asked him if alot of lingusts in the world treat these languages as part of SerboCroatian standard then there is no need to say something else for one of these languages..When i asked Taivo why the sentence is constructed like that he said to me "Because Croats treat Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects as Croatian language"...So if he care about their opinion so much then he could even erase SerboCroatian because Croats would never say that they speak some SerboCroatian but Croatian...Croatian can just be PART of SerboCroatian because in all four countries they call their languages by their country.This thing is confusing even without this sentence.But Taivo and Kwami are acting like some big linguists who knows everything and they don't respect other opinion..Nobody agreed to this sentence yet they arecontinuing with it and ignore other opinion like they are ignoring mine and reporting others like they did last week... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
JorisvS I think that even you don't know what you wrote now...So it doesn't matter what i say or other people it will be like this,it will be like this and that's it?I am talking about average persons who comes to this article and see this...Where is that explained in article what you said now?I didn't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kwami you should write a book about this subject because as i can see you and Taivo are well known linguists..In fact one of the best there are..And other linguists and people don't know a clue about this subject so you will not listen any other opinion and it will be like you said.No matter what people say and if 99% of people don't agree with you.Nice job.You said let's talk about this subject and what di u do?You are ignoring people..You are shame for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Scrosby85, you clearly don't understand a thing about how Wikipedia works. We do not edit this based on your assertions. You don't have any linguistic references. We don't listen to you because you aren't saying anything based on actual scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Taivo excuse me but you are the last person here to call yourself linguist or that you know something about that topic.You are just ignoring people opinion and that's i.Nobody agreed to the article as it is now on Wikipedia but you still made it and keep it that way...You are disgrace... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Did he finally go away? :-) I almost had to report him for WP:FORUM.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading through the discussion and I must note there is something to this. What does "as spoken by Croats" mean? If its the same language (which certainly appears to be the case), isn't this a FORK? Shouldn't it be merged into the Serbo-Croatian article? -- Director (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is, of course, quicksand in every direction whenever talking about Serbo-Croatian or its constituent registers/varieties/dialects. Some dogs are better left to lie quietly. The linguistic truth is that Croatian as the language spoken in Croatia is different than the other three varieties since there are three mutually intelligible dialects spoken in Croatia and not just a single variety of a single dialect. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Imo the most dangerous quicksand for the Wikipedia reader are obvious WP:POVFORKS, like these of the Balkans nationalist variety. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are two possible changes. 1) Make this article just about Standard Croatian, in which case it will closely mirror the Serbian and Bosnian articles, and make Chakavian and Kajkavian separate articles that aren't subordinate to any Croatian article. Croatians will complain because they regularly subsume Chakavian and Kajkavian into the label "Croatian" and will quote their contributions to the standard language. 2) Do away with this "content fork" entirely. I don't even want to contemplate what the Croatian nationalists would do at that point. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think option (1) would be a very good idea. Of course we'd still have to note that Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed under the label 'Croatian' by Croatians. IMO articles should be about concepts, not labels. Implementing option (1) fixes that in this case. And of course any citable contributions of Chakavian and Kajkavian to the standard language can be mentioned in the article(s). --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its an interesting case, one that should probably be discussed with the community at large. Option (2) is probably what we would go with if we were to follow the policies of this project (i.e. the sources), as opposed to catering to public opinion in one Balkans republic. On the other hand, option (2), if finally implemented, would probably make the news in Croatia in a few days. There's no question it would be widely viewed as an attack on the Croatian national identity, perhaps even as some sort of "Serbian conspiracy" (people love that sort of stuff around here). Even most moderate people would probably disapprove. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think option (2) would follow NPOV policies. There is, after all, a Croatian national standard, distinct from the Serbian and Bosnian ones, which is easily notable enough to merit its own article. --JorisvS (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it'd make much of a difference. Either way we'd really be eliminating the "Croatian language" from Wikipedia. Here, for example, is an internet article entitled "Serbo-Croatian does not exist" (I suppose some participants here might've seen it before?). Its from 2010, and its really a good example of the kind of stuff people will hear and think over in the Balkans. The subtitle is "A group of editors on Wikipedia has six months ago begun removing references to the Croatian language and replacing them with 'Serbo-Croatian'". Here's the first sentence:
- I don't think option (2) would follow NPOV policies. There is, after all, a Croatian national standard, distinct from the Serbian and Bosnian ones, which is easily notable enough to merit its own article. --JorisvS (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Its an interesting case, one that should probably be discussed with the community at large. Option (2) is probably what we would go with if we were to follow the policies of this project (i.e. the sources), as opposed to catering to public opinion in one Balkans republic. On the other hand, option (2), if finally implemented, would probably make the news in Croatia in a few days. There's no question it would be widely viewed as an attack on the Croatian national identity, perhaps even as some sort of "Serbian conspiracy" (people love that sort of stuff around here). Even most moderate people would probably disapprove. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think option (1) would be a very good idea. Of course we'd still have to note that Chakavian and Kajkavian are subsumed under the label 'Croatian' by Croatians. IMO articles should be about concepts, not labels. Implementing option (1) fixes that in this case. And of course any citable contributions of Chakavian and Kajkavian to the standard language can be mentioned in the article(s). --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are two possible changes. 1) Make this article just about Standard Croatian, in which case it will closely mirror the Serbian and Bosnian articles, and make Chakavian and Kajkavian separate articles that aren't subordinate to any Croatian article. Croatians will complain because they regularly subsume Chakavian and Kajkavian into the label "Croatian" and will quote their contributions to the standard language. 2) Do away with this "content fork" entirely. I don't even want to contemplate what the Croatian nationalists would do at that point. --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Imo the most dangerous quicksand for the Wikipedia reader are obvious WP:POVFORKS, like these of the Balkans nationalist variety. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"The planetary-popular Wikipedia refuses to give up on the Serbo-Croatian language. When one searches for the Croatian language on Wikipedia, he gets a page where its only possible to choose the Serbo-Croatian language [they're talking about the Croatian grammar redirect, and misleadingly presenting it as the Croatian language article]."
- Then the author brings in a Croatian linguist who's statements are presented as against "these developments", even though they seem somewhat ambiguous. The linguist does state "Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist", but his full statement is that it doesn't exist "on the level of an official language". I'm not going to translate the whole article, suffices to say that the two bold subtitles are "War against the Croatian language on Wikipedia?" ("Rat protiv hrvatskog jezika na Wikipediji?") and "Noone is reacting" ("Nitko ne reagira"). There's also a reference to some letter received by Dragutin Lesar (a leader of a minor Croatian party), in which a "reader" claims that there are twenty users from Serbia and Republika Srpska refactoring all "Croatian articles" on the most popular encyclopedia in the world.
- Now, this isn't a major news site. But, if the article were fully removed, there'd probably be a lot more stuff like this, and in major news portals. Then again, this article, as it stands now, is a pretty clear-cut example of a content fork. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Option (1) wouldn't mean deletion, though obviously such nationalists would be angry whatever we do (well, except blatantly follow their POV). Whatever nationalists' deluded ideas and behavior, I think it is best to follow reality (per the sources) and base our articles on concepts, not labels. This would lead to an article focusing on the whole language (Serbo-Croatian), an article on each of its dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian) and subdialects wherever there are sufficient sources, and an article on each on the standards (Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian, and maybe Standard Montenegrin). --JorisvS (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am quite willing to follow the NPOV consensus here. I agree that 2) is unworkable, although required by a strict adherence to the letter of Wikipedia "law". JorisvS' set of articles would fix the problem I think, although we'd have to be careful to label all four of the national standards identically--no "Serbian", "Bosnian", "Standard Croatian". I recently got done with a discussion at Bosnian language and the entire focus was "but that's not the way they do it at Croatian [or Serbian]". The four article titles and the four leads need to almost be mirrors of each other to avoid the complaints of favoritism. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you're saying you're not Serbian propagandists? :) It must be understood that, while its true Balkans nationalists will probably disapprove of whatever is done on this question, its not going to be quite the same. Regardless of whether we merge or reorganize this article, once the "Croatia/Serbia under attack!" alarm is sounded for such a "serious" issue, you'll likely see a much wider response than usual. Even more moderate Wikipedians from Croatia will likely protest in some way or another. Expect vote stacking in any RM.
- I am quite willing to follow the NPOV consensus here. I agree that 2) is unworkable, although required by a strict adherence to the letter of Wikipedia "law". JorisvS' set of articles would fix the problem I think, although we'd have to be careful to label all four of the national standards identically--no "Serbian", "Bosnian", "Standard Croatian". I recently got done with a discussion at Bosnian language and the entire focus was "but that's not the way they do it at Croatian [or Serbian]". The four article titles and the four leads need to almost be mirrors of each other to avoid the complaints of favoritism. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Option (1) wouldn't mean deletion, though obviously such nationalists would be angry whatever we do (well, except blatantly follow their POV). Whatever nationalists' deluded ideas and behavior, I think it is best to follow reality (per the sources) and base our articles on concepts, not labels. This would lead to an article focusing on the whole language (Serbo-Croatian), an article on each of its dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian) and subdialects wherever there are sufficient sources, and an article on each on the standards (Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, Standard Bosnian, and maybe Standard Montenegrin). --JorisvS (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now, this isn't a major news site. But, if the article were fully removed, there'd probably be a lot more stuff like this, and in major news portals. Then again, this article, as it stands now, is a pretty clear-cut example of a content fork. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposed reorganization as well, and I certainly agree that the articles will need to be very similar in their definition. One question though: which is more appropriate: "Standard Croatian" or "Croatian standard"? -- Director (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, too, we should make things as consistent with each other as possibly. In fact, I think we should always try to. As I've already said above, I don't think (2) would be to the letter of Wikipedia policy; I think that would be
NPOV, too, because the national standards do exist. Some reordering of the content would be sufficient. 'Standard Croatian' would be the appropriate title. --JorisvS (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, too, we should make things as consistent with each other as possibly. In fact, I think we should always try to. As I've already said above, I don't think (2) would be to the letter of Wikipedia policy; I think that would be
- I agree with the proposed reorganization as well, and I certainly agree that the articles will need to be very similar in their definition. One question though: which is more appropriate: "Standard Croatian" or "Croatian standard"? -- Director (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Narrowing the scope to Standard Croatian would require little change to the article; the mention of Kajkavian and Chakavian in the history section works for either conception, I think. Restricting the four national-language articles to the standards probably would allow them to be more consistent. I'm not sure moving the article to "Standard Croatian" would be a good idea, however. I think it would probably be better to leave it where it is, and to simply explain in the lead (and perhaps in a hat note) that this article deals primarily with the standard language. — kwami (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- At that point 'Standard Croatian' would be more precise as the article's title, whereas 'Croatian language' would be rather vague in comparison, but has the benefit of (probably) not inflaming the nationalists as much. --JorisvS (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- But that would mean we'd have no "Croatian language" article. I did the same thing for Standard Hindi, and there was a big argument over it, and it was eventually moved to "Hindi", despite the resulting attempts to broaden its scope to cover the "Hindi" of the Indian national census. I imagine that not having an article called "Croatian language" at all may be more objectionable than narrowing the scope of the article. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. But other than the lead, what would you change in this article? The history involving other dialects is relevant to Standard Croatian, IMO. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are several things that I think could be done to the body of the article:
Done The phonology and grammar sections only contain general info about (Shtokavian) Serbo-Croatian. Much of the grammar section contains info that I think belongs in the lead of the Serbo-Croatian grammar article and is currently missing there. Any information regarding the phonology and grammar that doesn't fork Serbo-Croatian should probably go under a comparison of the standard languages.- I think we should deal overtly with the most important differences between the standards, instead of merely referring our readers to 'comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian'.
- The pre-standardization history really is about Serbo-Croatian, or rather its main varieties, and often has little to do with (current) Standard Croatian. Unless it can be shown to be relevant to its standardization, it shouldn't be here.
- Improvements that are probably not related to the topic shift include:
- Structuring the Sociopolitical standpoints section
- Clarifying the scope of the Current events section
- --JorisvS (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Any other suggestions? --JorisvS (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone feel like summarizing Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian into the empty differences sections here, at Serbian language, and at Bosnian language? --JorisvS (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are several things that I think could be done to the body of the article:
- Sounds good to me. But other than the lead, what would you change in this article? The history involving other dialects is relevant to Standard Croatian, IMO. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
After a significant pause I must return to the original problem: "Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the Serbo-Croatian language as spoken by Croats,..." cannot stand because of the alphabet difference - Cyrillic and Roman. I mean language, since the mankind evolved and invented writing, is not only the spoken language but it is also the written language. Therefore we are missing a crucial point with this substitution of the whole with just its part. Also, since the creation of Montenegrin and introduction of the ⟨ś⟩ and ⟨ź⟩, Croatian variant is missing at least two more sounds in its alphabet. Not to mention the already mentioned technicality: non-Croats in Croatia (or anywhere else) that speak Croatian variant are lumped under the Croat ethnicity with the existing wording. So we cannot equate Serbo-Croatian and Croatian with a simple note that the latter is the former when/as spoken by Croats. We should return to previous wording or invent a better one. --biblbroks (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are wrong, Biblbroks. Writing is not a part of language, it is just the representation of a language. Language is oral. Spelling differences and even orthography differences have nothing whatsoever to do with distinguishing two languages, else you would have to say that British English and American English are different languages just because of "color/colour" and "personalize/personalise". Different alphabets do not hinder mutual intelligibility between Croatian and Serbian speakers for one second. There is one single, solitary, non-Slovenian West South Slavic language and the most common name for that language in English is Serbo-Croatian. Just as different orthographies don't make Urdu and Hindi into separate languages, neither do different orthographies make Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian into separate languages. And you seem to completely have forgotten the fact that Serbo-Croatian was written during the 20th century with two different alphabets normally. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. You are right, I forgot. --biblbroks (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Twin status in Serbia
I don't know how best to explain this part. In Vojvodina, it has official status and this region is home to the vast majority of Croatians in Serbia. There are however thousands more in Belgrade and the rest of the country, so Croatian is also a recognised minority language in that country. Worth listing twice in infobox? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Moving material to Serbo-Croatian
It looks like there's a healthy edit war over the issue of whether to move a large chunk of the article to Serbo-Croatian (diff). I don't have an informed opinion on the matter, but the interested parties should probably talk it out here before more reverts are made. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- If sourced information can be added to Serbo-Croatian, that's fine, but removal of sourced material from this particular article is not warranted.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The material has been stable here for years, so we should discuss before making an edit like that that will raise so many hackles. AFAIK, the early history we're talking about was mostly in what is now Croatia. Was Serbian/Bosnian even relevant at that time? However, SC is the language and the main article. We shouldn't have it at both places, as a content fork. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm quite concerned about accuracy of the Serbo-Croatian article - the Ethnologue defines Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage (as reflected by ISO 639 macrolanguage article too), i.e. not a language strictly speaking - therefore the specific article does not accurately reflect reliable sources. I suspect the change, when introduced in the Serbo-Croatian article, will provoke an edit war so I don't particularly care to edit that one, but perhaps this particular article would benefit from the information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Tomobe, the fact that Ethnologue lists Serbo-Croatian as a 'macrolanguage' is purely political. The standardized forms (i.e. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian) are only marginally different and easily mutually intelligible, akin to British and American English. --JorisvS (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Kwami. The notion of a 'Croatian language' like the one in this article is closely related to standardized Croatian. Although the early history of Serbo-Croatian has been here for years, it is misplaced, because it is relevant to the language (i.e. Serbo-Croatian), not to (standard) Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- @JorisvS. It could be equally argued that "Serbo-Croatian" was a reflection of political circumstances. The point is that the Ethnologue as a WP:RS clearly defines SC as a macrolanguage and both that source and ample others (EU included) define Croatian language as a separate one. Yes, Croatian and Serbian languages are related. Yes they are mutually intelligible. But they also have a degree of differences. Some sources define them as dialects of SC, others (more contemporary ones) define them as separate languages. Recently the differences are more insisted upon, both in Croatia and in Serbia (official government tender documents are required in cyrillic script for instance) as well as in the EU. It is also a fact that a native speaker of Croatian with no formal education in Serbian will not be able to produce a proper text in Serbian (regardless of cyrillic script) and vice versa. I'm perplexed at wholesale copying of the Croatian language history material to SC article - how do you propose to find a WP:RS saying "Baška tablet is written in SC" or something to that effect? Or do you plan to claim SC=Croatian contrary to the sources? Contrary to what I said in the above post, I provided the source (Ethnologue) clearly supporting the claim that Bosnian and Serbian and Croatian are distinct (albeit closely related) languages.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Tomobe03, Ethnologue/ISO 639-3 use "macrolanguage" in this case as a cover term for mutually intelligible varieties that might differ in orthographies, cultural traditions, ethnicity, etc., but not necessarily linguistically. In other words, the term "macrolanguage" in the case of Serbo-Croatian is a political compromise. You don't seem to understand how Ethnologue and the ISO 639 system works. It's done by proposal and compromise among interested communities, it is not a strictly scientific linguistic judgment. I've been trying for a couple of years to get a mess cleaned up on Puget Sound where there are four codes for only three languages (all of which are mutually intelligible), but can't make any headway with the ISO authority because the tribes involved won't budge and they have financial stakes in all four codes. So don't make a purely linguistic argument based on Ethnologue unless there is corroborating evidence of a scientific linguistic nature (which the EU isn't). Serbo-Croatian is listed as a "macrolanguage" because it's one language with three national standards, two orthographies, three ethnicities, three religions, etc., not because there are three different languages. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation (sayso) contradicting what the source explicitly says and therefore WP:OR apparently aimed at POV-pushing. This is wiki and not a place for OR or your interpretation of which sources are suitable or not outside what WP:RS allows (and bars). For instance, your dismissal of non-linguistic sources is odd as wiki must reflect all reliable sources giving them due weight per WP:DUE. Therefore feel free to say in this or any other article: this group of sources/linguists/whatnot says this and this group says that without dismissing either (as long they are not WP:FRINGE and EU official use certainly is not). Please restrain yourself from editorializing - including dismissing sources which do not suit your POV - as you did here in SC article, where you removed a referenced sentence perfectly accurately conveying claims explicitly stated in a RS, with an edit summary saying in effect "they did not mean so". The fact that the SC is generally pushed aside in favour of Croatian, Serbian etc. in real world also need be reflected by the article, your frustration about it won't save SC. Please try to understand that languages change, split, merge die out - in a word, develop. Were it not so, there would be no English or French or Czech or Slovak. I can see that you view Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages as some sort of nuisance to editors (Puget Sound case) requiring them to work harder when everything could be neatly done in a single word instead of three. It's ok for you to feel that way, but please note that the EU is not using "Croatian" as short for "Serbo-Croatian" ([1]) and that Serbia will undoubtedly insist that Serbian language become an official EU language too when it becomes a member state. I know some linguists will be particularly fond of separate languages and others will, like you, be partial to SC, but they built their careers on it. There's nothing wrong with it, report all their attitudes in the article(s), but you cannot base whole wiki article on a specific set of those, disregarding everything else simply because. If you wish to advocate your POV, and not reflect all RS, please consider writing a scientific article on linguistics of SC and seek a publisher.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Linguistic sources are far more due than non-linguistic sources when discussing languages. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Tomobe03You clearly don't know anything about the nature of the ISO 639-3 (which is the primary source for Ethnologue's labels and classifications). My comments are not WP:OR because they are based on freely available definitions and descriptions of the ISO 639-3 system. And your comparison of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian to English and French is laughable. Indeed, I'll laugh again. You simply don't understand the linguistic facts behind the varieties of Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Linguistic sources are far more due than non-linguistic sources when discussing languages. CMD (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation (sayso) contradicting what the source explicitly says and therefore WP:OR apparently aimed at POV-pushing. This is wiki and not a place for OR or your interpretation of which sources are suitable or not outside what WP:RS allows (and bars). For instance, your dismissal of non-linguistic sources is odd as wiki must reflect all reliable sources giving them due weight per WP:DUE. Therefore feel free to say in this or any other article: this group of sources/linguists/whatnot says this and this group says that without dismissing either (as long they are not WP:FRINGE and EU official use certainly is not). Please restrain yourself from editorializing - including dismissing sources which do not suit your POV - as you did here in SC article, where you removed a referenced sentence perfectly accurately conveying claims explicitly stated in a RS, with an edit summary saying in effect "they did not mean so". The fact that the SC is generally pushed aside in favour of Croatian, Serbian etc. in real world also need be reflected by the article, your frustration about it won't save SC. Please try to understand that languages change, split, merge die out - in a word, develop. Were it not so, there would be no English or French or Czech or Slovak. I can see that you view Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages as some sort of nuisance to editors (Puget Sound case) requiring them to work harder when everything could be neatly done in a single word instead of three. It's ok for you to feel that way, but please note that the EU is not using "Croatian" as short for "Serbo-Croatian" ([1]) and that Serbia will undoubtedly insist that Serbian language become an official EU language too when it becomes a member state. I know some linguists will be particularly fond of separate languages and others will, like you, be partial to SC, but they built their careers on it. There's nothing wrong with it, report all their attitudes in the article(s), but you cannot base whole wiki article on a specific set of those, disregarding everything else simply because. If you wish to advocate your POV, and not reflect all RS, please consider writing a scientific article on linguistics of SC and seek a publisher.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Tomobe03, Ethnologue/ISO 639-3 use "macrolanguage" in this case as a cover term for mutually intelligible varieties that might differ in orthographies, cultural traditions, ethnicity, etc., but not necessarily linguistically. In other words, the term "macrolanguage" in the case of Serbo-Croatian is a political compromise. You don't seem to understand how Ethnologue and the ISO 639 system works. It's done by proposal and compromise among interested communities, it is not a strictly scientific linguistic judgment. I've been trying for a couple of years to get a mess cleaned up on Puget Sound where there are four codes for only three languages (all of which are mutually intelligible), but can't make any headway with the ISO authority because the tribes involved won't budge and they have financial stakes in all four codes. So don't make a purely linguistic argument based on Ethnologue unless there is corroborating evidence of a scientific linguistic nature (which the EU isn't). Serbo-Croatian is listed as a "macrolanguage" because it's one language with three national standards, two orthographies, three ethnicities, three religions, etc., not because there are three different languages. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- @JorisvS. It could be equally argued that "Serbo-Croatian" was a reflection of political circumstances. The point is that the Ethnologue as a WP:RS clearly defines SC as a macrolanguage and both that source and ample others (EU included) define Croatian language as a separate one. Yes, Croatian and Serbian languages are related. Yes they are mutually intelligible. But they also have a degree of differences. Some sources define them as dialects of SC, others (more contemporary ones) define them as separate languages. Recently the differences are more insisted upon, both in Croatia and in Serbia (official government tender documents are required in cyrillic script for instance) as well as in the EU. It is also a fact that a native speaker of Croatian with no formal education in Serbian will not be able to produce a proper text in Serbian (regardless of cyrillic script) and vice versa. I'm perplexed at wholesale copying of the Croatian language history material to SC article - how do you propose to find a WP:RS saying "Baška tablet is written in SC" or something to that effect? Or do you plan to claim SC=Croatian contrary to the sources? Contrary to what I said in the above post, I provided the source (Ethnologue) clearly supporting the claim that Bosnian and Serbian and Croatian are distinct (albeit closely related) languages.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm quite concerned about accuracy of the Serbo-Croatian article - the Ethnologue defines Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage (as reflected by ISO 639 macrolanguage article too), i.e. not a language strictly speaking - therefore the specific article does not accurately reflect reliable sources. I suspect the change, when introduced in the Serbo-Croatian article, will provoke an edit war so I don't particularly care to edit that one, but perhaps this particular article would benefit from the information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a language of which both Croatian and Serbian are ethnic terms. This language has no good name. We use SC here on WP. Whether the name is a political creation is irrelevant: the language isn't the name.
Now, this article is not about standard Croatian, but about all varieties of SC spoken by Croats. AFAIK, the early development of literary SC took place outside the Ottoman Empire. Since this is what we are covering in the 'early history' section, I can see why it might go here. On the other hand, it is the history of the SC language, so it could go there as well. This is comparable to the history of Hindustani, which one could argue should be the history of Urdu. (Hindi history only goes back a century, like AFAICT Serbian history does.) I reverted the recent restoration of the material, and then reverted myself, as I think we need some intelligent discussion on the issue. Intelligent. Much of the discussion on these articles has been idiotic, and any argument based on the claim that SC was "invented" etc. are not worth responding to. Most of the linguistically informed editors seem to support the move. I'd like to hold off to see what those supporting its retention here have to say.
Just to clarify, SC is the abstandsprache. Standard Croatian is an ausbausprache. The Croatian covered in this article is neither: it's not really a language at all, but the speech of an ethnicity. (I can understand the argument made earlier that this article should be restricted to the ausbausprache, but that's a different discussion.) — kwami (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with specific linguistic terms, so I've been trying to steer clear of these endless flamewars (which are another inherent reason to steer clear), but I saw Tomobe03's complaint and given that I know that he's generally acting in good-faith, I can't really stand idle while he's bashed for apparently trying to apply the basic principles of the verifiability policy. What should be in the article called "Croatian language" is not what we decide, but what's in reliable sources. We shouldn't even be deciding on whether there's a 1:1 mapping between the meaning of the term "Croatian language" and the meaning of the Croatian term "hrvatski jezik" - instead a secondary source should be found that makes that mapping for us, and cited. If there's a discrepancy in the sources between the two, we should describe it; even better, if there's a source describing such a discrepancy, we should cite it. That is the only way to keep some sanity in the matter. I like the call for intelligent discussion, but I fear it will soon devolve into a less intelligent discussion, like most before it - everyone who has enough free time to write something on Talk can better invest that time in finding a reliable source to use to support any claims they wanted to make on Talk - in the article space, where it's actually useful for the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Joy completely. Regarding greater weight of linguistic sources in language related articles - that's fine too. But there are ample linguistic sources claiming that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages are distinct languages rather than mere dialects just as there are those claiming otherwise. Ignoring one group in favour of the other is textbook POV-pushing. Non-linguistic sources should not be dismissed, but given due weight per WP:DUE. Trends - increasing or decreasing use of one or the other in real world (for instance census results where population is free to declare which language they speak) - should also be noted if the article is going to be comprehensive and objective. It is not for me or any self-declared expert to understand linguistic background of this or any other language here precisely because that leads to interpretation of sources - and that is WP:SYNTH at best and WP:OR at the worst - and POV-pushing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- They're not even that: The standards are the same subdialect (Eastern Herzegovinian) of the same dialect (Shtakovian) of the same language. The distinction is ethnic and social, not grammatical or phonological. Croats and Serbs can't even tell their languages apart half the time. They are different standards: that's what the distinction between abstand and ausbau I linked to above refers to. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is just insane. The scholarly linguistic sources are clear on this matter, and you have two very respected linguists on Wiki, one a univ. professor! - trying to steer this ridiculous re-occurring nationalist nonsense back to where it belongs, and yet even that apparently is not enough. Please. Enough. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire: rather, it is insane to claim that every point debunking the myth that purely scientific/linguistic criteria are applied here, is rooted in Croat nationalism. This policy only goes to show the delusional nature of certain zealots who propagandize "Serbo-Croat," and Fejstkajkafski's insightful comment was very telling in that regard. I do commend Tomobe03 and Joy [shallot] for their level-headed approach in view of the situation. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is just insane. The scholarly linguistic sources are clear on this matter, and you have two very respected linguists on Wiki, one a univ. professor! - trying to steer this ridiculous re-occurring nationalist nonsense back to where it belongs, and yet even that apparently is not enough. Please. Enough. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, boy. This is terrible. Who would have thought that Croats revenge-trolling amongst themselves would lead to this? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- JorisvS erased history of Croatian language, did not explain why. Baška tablet is one of the first monuments containing an inscription in the Croatian language, dating from the year 1100. It can not be a part of the history of Serbo-Croatian language. What is the origin of Serbo-Croatian language? In the 18 th century. It is scientifically impossible to connect the 11th and 18 century.--Sokac121 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You non-linguists simply don't have a good handle on the linguistic facts here. Sokac, that comment is rather naive. In 1100 that monument was not written in modern Croatian or modern standard Croatian, it was written in the common non-Slovenian West South Slavic language. The name that modern linguists use for that language is "Serbo-Croatian". It wasn't called "Serbo-Croatian" in 1100, of course, but that is the term that modern linguists use for that language. --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- That your information about Baška tablet is wrong, incorrect. Of course it was written in Croatian language, because it is the most important source of Croatian language, that is reason it is called gemstone of Croatian language. Your problem is ignorance of the Croatian language and content of Baška tablet. --IvanOS 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand my comment, IvanOS. Modern Croatian did not exist in 1100. If you think that it did, then you appear to have a woeful lack of understanding about language and linguistics. What existed in 1100 might have been called "Croatian", but what it was in actuality was non-Slovenian West South Slavic, in other words the language from which the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian subdialects all descended. If you want to call it "Croatian", then fine, but a Serb would be equally justified in calling it "Serbian" and a Bosniak calling it "Bosnian". It is one language and 900 years ago the varieties of non-Slovenian West South Slavic were even closer to each other than they are today. It would be much more accurate to tell us whether that monument represented pre-Shtokavian, pre-Chakavian, or pre-Kajkavian rather than using the non-linguistic label "Croatian". Whatever variety it was in 1100, it was not modern Standard Croatian, it was either common non-Slovenian West South Slavic or it was early Shtokavian, early Kajkavian, or early Chakavian. That's what you don't seem to understand. It was no more Croatian in the modern sense than the language of Beowulf was "English" in the modern sense. --Taivo (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- but what it was in actuality was non-Slovenian West South Slavic, in other words the language from which the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian subdialects all descended.
- Being that you're a linguist, I hope you're aware of the fact that there was no "common" Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian idiom, separated from Slovene, one from which all of SC would have descended. Slovene, Kajkavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian separated at around the same time, respectively. . A "non-Slovenian West South Slavic from which all Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian subdialects all descended" simply didn't exist. West South Slavic, on the other hand, did.
- Saying that a Serb or Bosniak would be, for example, equally justified calling the Baška tablet Serbian or Bosnian only makes sense if we're to relativize all ethnicities and their historical landmarks, in which case we might as well call the Freising Manuscripts Serbian as well (after all, Slovene didn't exist just yet), although somehow I have doubts you'd agree with that. Furthermore, I'm not sure why it would have to be Croatian in the modern sense. Applying modern terminology anachronistically only causes even more head-aches. Seeing as even local historians agree for the overwhelming part on what each of them considers their share of history (Serb historians don't considers the Baška tablet to be Serbian or part of their history) as well as what made up their cultural and language roots, I don't see why the term Serbo-Croatian would be applied in such a fashion at times when it neither existed nor the people formed a tight linguistic or cultural union. Using the term Croatian in this article does not in any shape or form disrupt consensus, that of the current modern standard being called Serbo-Croatian by linguists, much like applying the label Low Franconian to idioms out of which Afrikaans sprang, but whose speakers hadn't moved to South Africa, doesn't disrupt the consensus on Afrikaans being a separate language. We don't apply the latter anachronistically to Low Franconian idioms in Netherlands/Belgium/Germany. Fejstkajkafski (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those are good points. Considering that we generally use the term "Croatian" in the modern sense, and not provide any warning when we're not, would it be better to simply call the language Chakavian, Shtokavian, etc., as the case may be? Or West South Slavic where we can't determine? Even if we avoid both the names SC and C, it would seem that the SC article is the place for this, as that is specifically the union of Shto+Cha+Kaj, regardless of whether the distinction between that and Slovenian is artificial. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand my comment, IvanOS. Modern Croatian did not exist in 1100. If you think that it did, then you appear to have a woeful lack of understanding about language and linguistics. What existed in 1100 might have been called "Croatian", but what it was in actuality was non-Slovenian West South Slavic, in other words the language from which the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian subdialects all descended. If you want to call it "Croatian", then fine, but a Serb would be equally justified in calling it "Serbian" and a Bosniak calling it "Bosnian". It is one language and 900 years ago the varieties of non-Slovenian West South Slavic were even closer to each other than they are today. It would be much more accurate to tell us whether that monument represented pre-Shtokavian, pre-Chakavian, or pre-Kajkavian rather than using the non-linguistic label "Croatian". Whatever variety it was in 1100, it was not modern Standard Croatian, it was either common non-Slovenian West South Slavic or it was early Shtokavian, early Kajkavian, or early Chakavian. That's what you don't seem to understand. It was no more Croatian in the modern sense than the language of Beowulf was "English" in the modern sense. --Taivo (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- That your information about Baška tablet is wrong, incorrect. Of course it was written in Croatian language, because it is the most important source of Croatian language, that is reason it is called gemstone of Croatian language. Your problem is ignorance of the Croatian language and content of Baška tablet. --IvanOS 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You non-linguists simply don't have a good handle on the linguistic facts here. Sokac, that comment is rather naive. In 1100 that monument was not written in modern Croatian or modern standard Croatian, it was written in the common non-Slovenian West South Slavic language. The name that modern linguists use for that language is "Serbo-Croatian". It wasn't called "Serbo-Croatian" in 1100, of course, but that is the term that modern linguists use for that language. --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Taivo weak these arguments. That's what you're bragging that linguist, no argument. You can not impose your views--Sokac121 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course he can, if his views are those of linguistic sources. My question is this: in the era we're talking about, where there already separate Serb and Croat ethnicities? Or were the people simply Slavs? I don't know enough about the ethnogenesis in the region to know whether this is similar to those editors who speak of "Pakistan" in the year 1600.
- IMO, if the Serb/Croat divide goes back this far, and the details of this history are all on the Croat side, then it's simply a question of whether this article or the other is the better location. However, if the divide doesn't go back that far, then it definitely does not belong here. Not unless by "Croatian" you include Serbian. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Kwami, a bit above you said "Now, this article is not about standard Croatian, but about all varieties of SC spoken by Croats.". What would be the unique (i.e. non-forked) content for this article besides Standard Croatian? --JorisvS (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Articles frequently overlap. Hindi and Urdu do, as do several other cases like this. I don't have a problem defining a language ethnically, as long as we're clear that it is not a language in the more familiar sense. What we have now is common usage. If we did narrow the scope to standardized Croatian, we'd need to be clear that we were not covering all the lects that Croats speak. But currently our Serbian article is not about the standard language either, and we don't seem to have a problem with that. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- My forté is history, not linguistics, so I can only really help in that respect. @kwami: there is no divide. The first Croatian language defined as "separate" was actually declared in 1941 by the ultranationalist Ustase government, and was gone between 1945 and 1991. An official Croatian language viewed as separate from SC has existed for about 25 years all put together. That is to say, SC in one form or another was not the language for about 25 years of history.
- The terms "Croatian language" and "Serbian language" were certainly used well before 1991, but basically as different names for the same language, never in the sense that they are separate languages. Until the Croatian national identity came under (a pretty real) threat of assimilation by Serbs in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, noone in their right mind even considered the possibility that Croatian is an entirely separate language from Bosnian or Serbian etc. Certainly not the Illyrians and other 19th century linguists. So far as I'm aware, even 19th century Croatian nationalists (Party of Rights; never held power) advocated a revival of a Greater Croatia, but did not actually declare that Croatian is a separate language from Serbian (they referred to the whole mess as "Croatian", much like the Serbian Radicals call it "Serbian"). Officially, in Austria-Hungary, the language was called "Croatian or Serbian", etc.. (I'll try not to go off on a tangent). Its really just a national identity thing.
Director does not tell the truth. Census of Kingdom of Slavonia and Croatian 1910. (Austro-Hungarian). Croatian language there before 1941, Croatian and Serbian separate. Direktor certainly understand Hungarian language? --Sokac121 (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mhm. And here's a couple more pictures that "Destroy the Lies!!" [2][3]. I don't know where you got that pic, but I actually did read-up on Austro-Hungarian census data. Now, maybe I'm wrong in my above assertion, its an obscure issue I am not particularly familiar with, but I do have secondary and primary sources behind what I'm saying and what I would like to see - is sources that show someone in Austria-Hungary actually claimed that these are separate languages. Linguistically (because that's what we're talking about), rather than simply using different names. A whole list of very different names were used for Serbo-Croatian and its variants literally since time immemorial.
![[2]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/austria_hungary_1911.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Ethnographic_map_of_austrian_monarchy_czoernig_1855.jpg){kind=link}
- What really matters is whether the variant referred to as the Croatian language really has explicitly been treated as a separate language by linguists in the past. For example, if you're a linguist, and you want to record the Slavic language used in the inaccessible backwater that was the Balkans (Croatia included), you'll treat it in your publication and you might call it the "Croatian language" (or the "Illyrian language", etc. etc.) - but that does not mean you necessarily maintain that it is separate somehow, from the practically identical variant spoken further into the peripheral "wildlands" of the Ottoman Empire. Now, very few people seriously documented the languages of this area before the late 18th century, and when they did - they usually called it the "Illyrian language" or "Slavonic language". In the first half of the 19th century, the Illyrian movement, actually headquartered in Croatia-Slavonia, aggressively advocated both political and linguistic unitarianism. It may be possible that in the latter half of the 19th century some Croatian linguists actually maintained Croatian was "separate" from Serbian - but even if they did, which I doubt, I'm reasonably certain they were a minority with no official standing. But, while I won't say its utterly impossible, the WP:BURDEN is squarely on such a claim. -- Director (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like Hindustani, where before the divide of religious nationalism, Muslims often called their language "Hindi" and Hindus often called it "Urdu". (Wouldn't expect an exact parallel here, since S and C are geographically distinct.) If you can find a ref that the names were largely interchangeable before a certain date, that would be an excellent addition to the SC article. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Fejstkajkafski and Director appear to have the most informed opinions on this. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- *sigh* I told you two days ago that the idea that we need discussion is pointless, and two days later you're having to analyze the discussion to find which parts were intelligent :) Nobody actually needs a Usenet-style discussion here, instead we need people to make useful edits to the encyclopedia. We already know how that should be done. It doesn't involve the display of most kinds of opinions on Talk (there are places where editorial decisions can be made based on opinions - this is not such a place). It doesn't really involve having to analyze discussions based on opinions, because makes people's spend time, time that could have been spent on making useful edits. Please, let's move away from this largely unproductive model. There is no apparent proof that it actually contributes to the improvement of articles. For example, I see 16,477 bytes of new Talk here in those two days, but nothing of comparable value in the article (there's a single small copyedit by JorisvS). There isn't even an observable potential: I see no reason to believe there's a correlation between someone reading all this text and the probability that they'll make some referenced contributions to the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't really help, Joy. We're facing a problem.. how do you propose to solve it? -- Director (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I already said how to solve it - follow the fine policy and cite sources for everything. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't really help, Joy. We're facing a problem.. how do you propose to solve it? -- Director (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally folks, here's a translation of the thread Sokac121 linked above. The conversation is between User:IvanOS, User:Sokac121 and LeoZ (who I don't think has an account over here):
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I don't know if anyone read the article on the English Wikipedia, but there in the first sentence it states: 'Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the Serbo-Croatian language as spoken by Croats.' Also the English Wiktionary only has Serbo-Croatian.
I'm no expert, and even though some kind of Serbo-Croatian is still spoken, ie. Croatian polluted with Serbian, that article is a disgrace, impertinent, and spits in the face of the ten-century-long development of the Croatian language.
Any comments on that? -LeoZ (razgovor) 06:53, 20 January 2013 (CET)
- Not only did we read it we fought against it happening, unfortunately we failed to defend the Croatian language. So we gave-up on that article. -Šokac ℗ 11:39, 20 January 2013 (CET)
- As Šokac said, we tried to change it, but we failed because several foreign users (e.g. Kwamikagami) persistently maintain the position that Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are actually the Serbo-Croatian language. This state of affairs was much aided by a few "our" (i.e. Croatian) users (e.g. DIREKTOR, etc.), who actively and openly fight against Croatia and the Croatian language by writing such nonsense. We were in error to have given up on correcting that nonsense, but that can easily be rectified: we need to include even more of us in that struggle, and we must not give up until we get what we want, the truth about our language. Maybe then those yugonostalgics will give up and understand they are wrong. --IvanOS 16:15, 20 January 2013 (CET)
Denial of the Croatian language continues. The latest in the string of absurd edits was posted by JorisvS (from the Netherlands), who transferred the information on the Baška tablet from the Croatian language to the Serbo-Croatian language article [5][6]. With that he also replaced the word Croatian with Serbo-Croatian (The beginning of the Croatian written language can be traced... > The beginning of written Serbo-Croatian can be traced...), which will make the uninformed think that this Serbo-Croatian came into being in the 9th century, which of course isn't true. I was undoing those edits, but then some foreigner Taivo and the aforementioned DIREKTOR reverted me. This obviously won't go as long as I and another user fight against it. Therefore I repeat and request that as many users as possible join in on this. If anything is unclear, you can come to me. Thank you in advance! --IvanOS 19:55, 29 January 2013 (CET)
- The Baška tablet is part of the South Slav languages, what Croatian got into you, there was no modern Croatian back then. Says Joris :). Well who even argues that modern Croatian existed in 1100, and the man is a linguist, this is paranormal. And then the Serb pepsi appears all excited and saucy and says Croats are trolling, and later on the Serbian Wikipedia it turns out as if we destroyed the Serbian language.--Šokac ℗ 21:14, 30 January 2013 (CET)
-
- Croatian language as a separate language was declared in 1941 by Ustaše authorities
- the official Croatian language is 25 years old
- before 1991 Croatian and Serbian were never seperated
- officially, in Austria-Hungary, the language was called "Croatian or Serbian"
- and there's much more ... :xD
- P.S. Direktor for president [with "president" written in a garbled Serbian variant form] --Šokac ℗ 15:59, 1 February 2013 (CET)
Gripping stuff. I particularly like the canvassing and ridicule.. -- Director (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate it, either. In particular, have warned IvanOS on en: time and time again about his egregiously nationalist edits, and they've done very little to assuage my concerns - this kind of blatant canvassing just adds to the list of transgressions that seems to be putting him on a straightforward path to a topic ban. I have observed Sokac121 to be more patient than IvanOS on en:, which you can see above, too, and I'm willing to tolerate his crass comments under freedom of speech just like I'm willing to tolerate your inferences about Croatian as a concept being inextricably linked to 1941 (I trust you realize how that can be considered insulting).
- In any case, I understand why it is desirable to provide a history section in the Serbo-Croatian article, but why is necessary to do it in such an egregiously inflammatory manner? Some of those mass search&replaces are really ridiculuous. The references to the Vinodol Codex are a) broken links, so it's obvious nobody actually read them b) [7] [8] - clearly aren't using the term Serbo-Croatian. That's a classic case of a WP:SYNTH violation. Either these Croatian sources should be used to describe what they actually describe, or they shouldn't be used at all. There's also another reference to Encyclopedia of the languages of Europe that I didn't try to verify because it's not available online, but it should be verified as well.
- I think it's necessary to remind everyone that we're dealing with an article that has the most unflattering distinction of being the the first ever indefinitely restricted under WP:ARBMAC, so the standard of behavior here really needs to made to match that, and then some - avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. When there's apparently a public feud between en: and hr:, any impropriety, real or perceived, is going to be off-putting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It's terrible how article has changed in a short time. What has changed in the world, whether by prominent linguists learn something new. This explanation [9] very nice (kwami: exactly: there has been no decision to keep this duplicate here.) And who decided to move?. I thought that wikipedia is not a place to publish their own ideas.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sokac, I have to be blunt. As far as I'm concerned you're completely discredited here in terms of good faith, and are not the one to lecture people on "pushing their own ideas". And considering how obviously poor your English skills are, I sincerely advise you to retire. -- Director (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The ruling at the top of the Talk Page on this article should be clear to all:
" Croatian is a standardized register of a language which is also spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins. In English, this language is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia. " - And that's how it is. By every academic standard, linguistic and history. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. This is just a claim, nothing more -- don't try selling it as an absolute truth, as the opposite view is just as legitimate -- by every academic linguistic or historical standard. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all, the opposite is actually only based on wishful thinking. --JorisvS (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, calling it "wishful thinking" is delusional. The term was coined by German folklorist Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm as a term of convenience. Spreading lies that it was modeled on Croatian and Serbian "nationalists" of the time does not help resolve the issue, but points to the fact that the thread starter preferably operates with fabrications in order to push his pov. cheers.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all, the opposite is actually only based on wishful thinking. --JorisvS (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. This is just a claim, nothing more -- don't try selling it as an absolute truth, as the opposite view is just as legitimate -- by every academic linguistic or historical standard. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- meh, that's a rubbish definition. sounds like some artificial, synthetic language. languages are not determined ONLY by their objective linguistic properties. and hardly anyone uses the standard Croatian outside formal communication anyway, with people preferring their organic idioms), so basically this article covers just a fragment of what Croatian really is. regarding the "common name", I guess it will forever remain confined to some obscure academic circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.123.109 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong, anon IP. If you are talking about "organic idioms", then you are not talking about Croatian, but about one of the three non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects--Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian. These are the three constituent dialects of non-Slovenian West South Slavic. Standard Croatian is one of the varieties of Shtokavian, along with Serbian and Bosnian. The most common name for non-Slovenian West South Slavic in English is "Serbo-Croatian". From your own mouth has come the confirmation that "Croatian", meaning the range of dialects spoken by Croatians, is, indeed, also known in the wider linguistic community as Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- among the linguistic community. among pretty much everyone else, it's known simply as Croatian. I really don't care about the formal classification of these dialects. in real world, as opposed to foreign academia, "Croatian" is not just a label attached to a set of idioms that ethnic Croats happen to use. these idioms coexist, interact and function as Croatian language (not some register, form of some other language, etc.), and their native speakers recognize them as such. and the borders are reasonably well defined, too. to deny this is to be out of sync with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.168.177 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Democracy is not an argument. People are generally uneducated and quite dumb when it comes to scientific matters, particularly those that run counter to the established nationalist creed which the respected populace have been subjected to ever since the banana-state Croatia has emerged, and their "opionion" should generally be ignored, or at most stated as an entertaining fact of massive delusion and identity hysteria. There is no Croatian "idiom" that exists disentangled from the Bosian/Serbian/Montengrin idiom - they all form organically one and the same entity, the same subdialect of the same dialect, and no amount of arbitrarily drawn borders on the map can change that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- In your wet dreams, maybe. Perhaps we should all abandon our organic identities and reestablish a new sacred Yugoslavia.
- Democracy is not an argument. People are generally uneducated and quite dumb when it comes to scientific matters, particularly those that run counter to the established nationalist creed which the respected populace have been subjected to ever since the banana-state Croatia has emerged, and their "opionion" should generally be ignored, or at most stated as an entertaining fact of massive delusion and identity hysteria. There is no Croatian "idiom" that exists disentangled from the Bosian/Serbian/Montengrin idiom - they all form organically one and the same entity, the same subdialect of the same dialect, and no amount of arbitrarily drawn borders on the map can change that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- among the linguistic community. among pretty much everyone else, it's known simply as Croatian. I really don't care about the formal classification of these dialects. in real world, as opposed to foreign academia, "Croatian" is not just a label attached to a set of idioms that ethnic Croats happen to use. these idioms coexist, interact and function as Croatian language (not some register, form of some other language, etc.), and their native speakers recognize them as such. and the borders are reasonably well defined, too. to deny this is to be out of sync with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.168.177 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong, anon IP. If you are talking about "organic idioms", then you are not talking about Croatian, but about one of the three non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects--Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian. These are the three constituent dialects of non-Slovenian West South Slavic. Standard Croatian is one of the varieties of Shtokavian, along with Serbian and Bosnian. The most common name for non-Slovenian West South Slavic in English is "Serbo-Croatian". From your own mouth has come the confirmation that "Croatian", meaning the range of dialects spoken by Croatians, is, indeed, also known in the wider linguistic community as Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- meh, that's a rubbish definition. sounds like some artificial, synthetic language. languages are not determined ONLY by their objective linguistic properties. and hardly anyone uses the standard Croatian outside formal communication anyway, with people preferring their organic idioms), so basically this article covers just a fragment of what Croatian really is. regarding the "common name", I guess it will forever remain confined to some obscure academic circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.123.109 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Understanding
I do not understand why we are so eager in our insistence to call Croatian language Serbo-Croatian when there are no reason for it, nor French, nor Italian, nor German Wikipaedia, calls Croatian language a Serbo-Croatian. We need to understand poor Croats and their wish to saperate their language from Serbian, which is not so hard if we try. Thus it whould be much easier for Croats, and for us, to call Croatian language just South Slavic.
Anonymous
- Croatian is not strictly South Slavic. South Slavic has two branches--West and East. Croatian is in the West. West South Slavic has two branches--Slovenian and everything else. There are only two languages in West South Slavic. The question has always been, "What do we call non-Slovenian West South Slavic?" There is only one name available to linguists that covers the three main dialects of non-Slovenian West South Slavic (Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Shtokavian). It is "Serbo-Croatian". It's not hard to get your brain around and it doesn't matter that the other Wikipedias do. In English, non-Slovenian West South Slavic is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian". --Taivo (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is characteristic of some wikis, due to the unfortunate historical legacy that their respective countries carry, as well as inordinate amount of "tolerance" towards distinctiveness which EU policies and official creed mandates, to be excessively politically correct when it comes to charged issues involving language/identity/sovereignity. Fortunatelly English Wikipedia as a project trully international in scope can afford itself to call a spade a spade, and cut through otherwise impenetrable amounts of PC BS. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
To call West South Slavic language Slovene, and everything else, is complete idiotcy, there are not only two languages in West South Slavic but three, Štokavian (Sroatian, Serbian, Montenegrian, Bosnian), Kajkavian (Slovenian, Croatian) and Čakavian (Croatian). So if there is language so called Serbo-Croatian, then there must be language called Sloveno-Croatian, because Kajkavian dialect of Croatian language differs from Slovenian in a same amount as modern standard Croatian differs form modern Serbian. By this politics of some Serbo-Croatian language, his native speakers (Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrians) do not speek or understand ther own language (none Štokavian speakers, except Croats understand Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects, and they are in need of translation) that is why Croatian language is unique (Croatian language is Kaj-Što-Čakavian), while Serbian, Bosnian... are all Štokavian, while Slovenian is Kajkavian language. This is something no one seems to understand. By this logic then Sloven language is also Serbo-Croatian.... this all is just nonesense. I really don't understand why there is such eagerness to call Croatian language a Serbo-Croatian. Have anyone read Držić, Marulić, Gundulić, Zrinski, Frankopan, Brezovački, Krleža? If had he will see that Croatian language in his pure, historic form is so much more rich, stylistic and linguistically diverse that Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrian, Slovenian languages combine. 46.229.244.246 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are right anonymous. It is a real shame that Croats didn't choose Kajkavian as their standard language, as then they will be screwing around today with Slovenians instead of us Serbs. --Pepsi Lite (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just goes to show how little the anon IPs from Croatia actually know about language. Slovenian is not Kajkavian. It shares some features with Kajkavian, but it is not Kajkavian. In their mindless attempts to distance themselves from the fact that Croatian and Serbian are virtually identical, they'll pursue and espouse any unscientific nonsense that their handlers invent. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some serious issues in understanding, far as my eyes see, Taivo in actuallity knows very lettle about West South Slavic languages and complex history they had. First of all from very early age there are only three nations and ethnic grups in Southern East Europe there where Bulgarians, Serbs and Croats (Slovenians did not exist before 19th century, nither did Bosniaks, nor Motenegrians, nor Macedonians) and of course nither did they languages. Second Slovenian is not Kajkavian, OK nither is Serbian Štokavian, Serbian language is Serbian, Slovenian language is Slovene, and they both have one major dialect, whilest Croatian language have three major dialects (that is what you as I see do not understand).
Serbian: Danas je lep dan.
Slovenian: Danes je lepi dan.
Croatian: Danas je liep dan. Danas je lip dan. Danes je lepi dan.
English: Today is a beautiful day.
46.229.244.246 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Typical nationalist POV nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about and don't know what constitutes linguistic evidence or linguistic facts. Standard Croatian, Standard Serbian, and Standard Bosnian are all virtually identical variants of Shtokavian. Denying this is simply blind ignorance. You're just throwing around nationalistic nonsense and thinking that constitutes facts. I'm done responding to your lack of linguistic understanding. --Taivo (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Again complete misunderstanding. I was never tallking about Standard Croatian, Standard Croatian is more or less completely identical with Serbian, Bosnian... I was tallking about Croatian language, Yes the language spoken among people, not some idiotic standard, that in Croatia does not exist, the only one using the standard is media and government, no one speaks Standard, Standard was in the first place made only because of some Yugoslav unity, that is why today in Croatia the standard language is more Serbian then Croatian. The Croatian language in his pure form is completely different form Serbian, but You wouldn't know that, would you. You are very smart and You know all differences between Croatian, Serbian and Slovenian language (very interesting since You don't speak either of them). Have You read Croatian books, poetry... and then compared to Serbian, to Slovenian? Far as I know Serbs can't read Croatian poetry, unless they have a meter thick dictionary, and even then they would miss much of it.
Serbian and Standard Croatian: Dugo sam se bojao i nadao, slovo sam nadi, strahu dao; srce je prazno, srećno/sretno nije, natrag nadu i strah si želi.
Slovenian: Sem dolgo upal in se bal, slovo sem upu, strahu dal; srce je prazno, srečno ni, nazaj si up in strah želi.
Croatian Što: Sam se dugo ufao i se bojao, slovo sam ufu, strahu dao; srce je prazno, srjetno/srjećno ni, natrag si ufanje i strah želi.
Croatian Ča: San se duga ufa i se ba, slovo san ufu, strahu da; srce je prazno, srićno ni, natrag si uf i strah želi.
Croatian Kaj: Sem se dulgo/dolgo ufal/upal i se bojal/bal, slovo sem ufu/upu, strahu dal, srce je prazno, srečno/srećno ni, nazaj si uf/up i strah želi.
English: I have long hoped and feared, I give letter to hope, to fear; heart is empty, it is not happy, it wants back its hope and fear.
46.229.244.231 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Continuing to write sentences in these dialects is not proper linguistic evidence. It shows that you don't really understand the science behind it. --Taivo (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Tell me please, what would be proper linguistic evidence. I really don't understand your eagerness to deny existance of Croatian language. Croatian language is made of his three major dialects, and it is not a language which was artificialy made in 20th century. Serbian language has only one dialect, as well as Slovenian. One dialect of Croatian language is very similar to Serbian (Štokavian), one is very similar to Slovenian (kajkavian), and the third Croatian dialect is somewhere in between. If there weren't any nations, there would probably be three languages, one Kajkavian, one Štokavian, one Čakavian, unfortunately this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.229.244.231 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your nationalism is simply misplaced. Serbian and Bosnian are both Shtokavian as is standard Croatian. What you are really demanding is that Serbian and Bosnian be called "Croatian". That's not the name most commonly used in English for the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. That most common name is "Serbo-Croatian". You're just being blinded by your desire to make Croatian more important than any other Balkan nationality. Get over yourself. You absolutely don't know what you're talking about when it comes to linguistic science. We've discussed this with other blind nationalists over and over and over again. Read back through the discussion here and at Serbo-Croatian language, Serbian language, and Bosnian language. You're just repeating the same tired old nationalist non-linguistic drivel. --Taivo (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Call a Croat 'Balkan' here in Croatia and he'll surely buy you a beer or something. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.201.98 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright -- we have a lot of wanna-be scientists here who indulge in mindless drivel and guard their precious article constructs like the apple of their eye. :)esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Taivo's been more than patient here. WP:FORUM applies.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Croatian is not just a standard language
somebody fix this dammit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.77.11 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is just a standard language. There is no other coherent unit that is or can be called 'Croatian'. Chakavian, Kajkavian, and part of Shtokavian is regularly called 'Croatian' merely because they are spoken by ethnic Croatians. There is no linguistic element that makes these and not others 'Croatian'. --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bollocks. There are currently two standard Croatian languages in use by Croats, based on štokavian and čakavian. The one based on kajkavian was used in the past. My own variety of kajkavian is by your definition not Croatian because it is not standard. This is a purely technical, ridiculous definition and does not correspond to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.86.244 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- The (current) Croatian standard language is very much based on Shtokavian. Your Kajkavian is Croatian in the sense that it is spoken by ethnic Croats and within Croatia. It is, however, less related to Standard Croatian than Standard Croatian is to Standard Serbian. --JorisvS (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bollocks. There are currently two standard Croatian languages in use by Croats, based on štokavian and čakavian. The one based on kajkavian was used in the past. My own variety of kajkavian is by your definition not Croatian because it is not standard. This is a purely technical, ridiculous definition and does not correspond to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.86.244 (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Croatian in the sense of anything native to Croats is different than Croatian as a coherent language. Cladistically, if Kajkavian is Croatian, then Serbian is Croatian too. I personally have no problem with that, but none of our sources use the term that way. The language is best called Serbo-Croatian, different forms of which are spoken by both Serbs and Croats. — kwami (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)