Talk:Croatian language/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Useful videos on Croatian language, both in English and Croatian

Not wanting to bother readers with literature, I'll post links dealing with various controversies regarding Croatian language, and which have appeared only recently (in the past 1-2 years and later):

On various aspects on Croatian language status in the 2 Yugoslav states & in the past 2 centuries, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOcf12jFOM

On the history of the Croatian language, linguistics & controversies about the name and ideologies,pt.1 - English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-2eM9S6i8

Almost the same, slightly modified, but in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDONIhqHokU

On the history of the Croatian language, from the beginning to the 21st century, with Serbian and, to a lesser extent Bosnian, added- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rhPZryNp-M

Virtually the same, pt.2, but in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDb0YPidPU

Evolution of Croatian literary language, from 1100 on, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-PXiZzdjyg

Knez Novak's Missal, 1368 monument of the Croatian, witn English titles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsi0eGEyo7g

Short interview on the Croatian and Serbian languages, English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDDRgcs-iU

On the roots of Serbo-Croatian language ideology in the 18th century, as well its development in the 19th century, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ng5Auot3pA Mir Harven (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop peddling your nationalist poppycock on English Wikipedia. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop peddling Yugo-nationalist agenda that had been used for oppression of non-Serbian peoples in extinct Yugoslavia. Wikipedia has become, as regards this topic, a dogmatic Shmikipedia. The central point of modern culture is: rational arguments should be available to all, and especially to those who are interested or versed in the topic discussed. Those who try to enforce their dated & suppressive dogmas on others- and especially if they try to shut down public discourse, are doomed to fail. Critical thinking & liberty are unstoppable. Thanks. Mir Harven (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you, in all your desire for critical thinking and rationality, want to pretend that Croats do not understand most Serbs better than they understand some other Croats, stick to Croatian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not a forum for "public discourse". Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Calm down, you'll have a stroke. Croats perfectly well understand Serbs, as do various Scandinavian Germanic language speakers' others' languages, or Urdu speakers - Hindu speakers. But that doesn't make these languages one language, simply because cultural-historical identity & individuality are the central element in defining "what language is". English Wikipedia presents a false view on the history of Croatian because it denies the obvious: the continuity of the Croatian literary language goes from the 10th to the 21st centuries, without interruption. If one does not include Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Ragusan literature in the history of the Croatian language- one spreads falsities. No Croatian author in the 15th, the 16th,the 17th, the 18th, ... centuries ever thought of some "Serbo-Croatian", and Croatian written word has absolutely no contact with Serbian written word until the mid-19th C (and vice versa). It is true that some Croatian and Serbian intellectuals, from the mid 19th C to the 1930s tried to form some kind of unified language- but they failed. Languages do not appear out of blue, following some agreements or politicking. I have already addressed Serbo-Croatian ideology & its failure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbo-Croatian If you are not capable of understanding it- you just contribute to the further growth of contempt for Wikipedia project. Educated people increasingly see it as some kind of Stalinist gobbledegook and an instrument for spreading falsities & extreme leftist ideology. But- that's not my issue. If you intend to ruin the Wikipedia reputation- I cannot do anything to stop you (or your ideological cronies). Have a nice life. Mir Harven (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, "cultural-historical identity & individuality" do not define languages. I have no idea where you might have picked that up. Mutual intelligibility does. And no, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians do not understand each other nearly as well as Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Montenegrins do. As noted by US Slavicists, even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do. Until Croats start speaking a language actually distinct from that spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins or international academia en masse decides to entertain nationalist lies, the blabberings about the "Croatian written word" should have no effect on the content of the article. That argument is discussed (and refuted) by international philologists, however, so it may deserve to be mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, mutual intelligibility is actually worthless when it comes to standard languages. Hindi and Urdu are much more mutually intelligible than Serbian and Croatian, but are uniformly categorized by linguistic typology atlases as different languages, with different codes and different identities: Hindi: https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_hin, Urdu:https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_urd. There is no "Hindustani" ghost anymore, and no macro-language Hindi and Urdu are subsets of. If a community of speakers of a language, which is first literary, then standard language, decides that their own national language is their own- that's it and there is nothing more. Mutual intelligibility is a primitive concept, a sort of leftover from the 19th C. Also, Swiss German could, if Swiss wanted it, to become a separate language just because mutual intelligibility problems- most standard language speaking Germans have difficulty in understanding the Swiss German language. But, since Swiss Germans form a cultural unity with other German-speaking peoples (Germany, Austria,..)- they don't want to. More- there is no specifically Swiss German literary heritage they could- even if they wanted to- rely on. I will not go into details of fragility of "mutual intelligibility" concept- its varies over time for an individual, let alone a community. In the case of Croatian, Croatian lectionaries, sermons and evangels from the 16th and 17th C are almost completely understandable to modern Serbian and Bosnian speakers- and they feel revulsion to them because they are examples of cultural-national-identitarian texts which are both alien and somehow repellent. They not only don't have an interest in them- they loathe them. So, what you wrote about mutual intelligibility is simply obsolete and shallow (I won't go into other details you don't know about). In one of those videos in English, it is clearly indicated that Chinese consider their mutually unintelligible language to be one, and all efforts of Western linguists fail when confronted with the identity of 1.5 billion Chinese people and 4,000 years of Chinese historical culture. Actually- it is comical to insist that Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian are one language, and not succeeding to find a newly concocted name for that "language". This unnamed & rejected "language" is as "natural" as wooden iron. Just a contradiction waiting older linguists to die off & then it will naturally disappear even as a term of convenience (Wayles Browne still sticks to that notion: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian-language In the 21st century, then, two well-delineated standard languages exist (Croatian and Serbian) and two more are taking shape (Bosnian and Montenegrin). Educated speakers from any of the countries can converse with full understanding, hindered only by a few everyday words and technical terms (much like British boot and treacle versus American trunk [of a car] and molasses). Accordingly, some argue, they are speaking one language. When writing, however, one cannot follow Serbian and Croatian, or Montenegrin and Bosnian, language standards simultaneously, so in practice no joint standard exists. And, by the way- learn to behave civilly. Croats won't tolerate impositions & defamation, coming from anyone. As an acquaintance of mine has answered a question: Why is it mostly Croats who refuse Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin being one language while the others mostly agree? Because Croats don’t want their language heritage to be appropriated by others, even in theory. The ideology of Serbocroatism is appropriate for Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrins- what’s Croatian, it is also ours (in theory; in practice they don’t care). And, to be completely honest: it is a matter of collective psychology. Serbs and others do not pay much attention to language matters because they are not defined, as a nation, by language. The chief substance of their national being is religion. For Croats, who are Catholics, language matters infinitely more simply because most Catholics speak other, much more significant different languages. It is even more evident in the case of Slovenes, who have much higher language- national consciousness than Croats.For Serbian, Bosnian Muslim, Montenegrin national identity, national language is not of the primary importance. For Croats, it is.Or, to put it sketchily: Croatian is primarily a written language; Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are primarily spoken languages. Then, Croatian is a historical language (meaning it has fundamental texts in Croatian vernacular going back to the 1300s). Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin are not historical languages in this sense. Mir Harven (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do"

This is blatantly wrong. What is even going on here? 2A05:4F44:B1B:BD00:7CE2:435A:F181:4379 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"As noted by US Slavicists, even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do."

Why is this user allowed to make or take part in editorial decisions related to the Croatian language after blurting out blatantly wrong facts like this one? 88.207.84.109 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumably in WP:GOODFAITH, some information/viewpoint in those videos, which are about different topics, is probably true or has enough WP:WEIGHT in reliable scientific literature (and some scholars like M. Grčević are very reliable), but such videos mostly cannot be used as a reference for citation on Wikipedia. Every information needs to be WP:VERIFY in WP:RS. Such information, did not check every link, presumably at least by M. Grčević, most probably can be found in scientific literature. Articles related to a scientific field should mainly use & cite scientific literature, not videos. Also, article's talk page is not a forum, here should be discussed content changes. Thanks for sharing, but don't understand what you wanted to change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I posted videos links just to make it easier for those interested in the topic to understand the issues involved. I think it says something very significant that Croatian language (and "Serbo-Croatian language" pages) are almost always locked -they present a false view on almost everything they purport to explain or describe. Serious works on the Croatian language history are available, in Croatian, German & English. For instance: https://www.worldcat.org/title/71239290, https://www.worldcat.org/title/34315583, https://www.worldcat.org/title/40473913, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1045615360, https://www.worldcat.org/title/930760832,

https://www.worldcat.org/title/47701994,

https://www.worldcat.org/title/796388529,

https://www.worldcat.org/title/166422849,

.. So- there are books galore. But they are completely out of sync with the content of Wiki pages on these South Slavic languages, and to post links to them would be futile. The entire pages on Croatian language, and especially Serbo-Croatian as an ideological historical construct need re-writing; the page on Serbo-Croatian can remain only as a description of a phase of language ideologies, a sort of historical sociolinguistics review on Croatian and Serbian languages. For instance, in Croatian universities they teach Croatian historical grammar from this book: https://www.worldcat.org/title/310741374; in Serbian universities they teach Serbian historical grammar from this book: https://www.worldcat.org/title/555049502. There is no use in denying reality.Mir Harven (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

For those interested in scientific books and articles on Croatian language language structure, history and standardization, there are numerous works available in Croatian, and in German, plus some in English. I'll post a few links so that those interested in these issues can refer to them (not videos, which are for educational purpose only). Matasović's Croatian historical grammar:https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceajkouarraou5xwqyt4l6uoazlt65upxrgtid4azjphlhprpndkcc?filename=%28Biblioteka%20Theoria%29%20Ranko%20Matasovi%C4%87%20-%20Poredbenopovijesna%20gramatika%20hrvatskoga%20jezika-Matica%20hrvatska%20%282008%29.pdf, Auburger on Croatian language and Serbo-Croatism: https://archive.org/details/leopold-auburger-hrvatski-jezik-i-serbokroatizam/page/1/mode/2up; Moguš, Croatian language history: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedp4vx5du7n4p7fhseprf5e2iyp77eb5hjf2bj6ysromazeufaolu?filename=%28Biblioteka%20Priru%C4%8Dnici%29%20Milan%20Mogu%C5%A1%20-%20Povijest%20hrvatskoga%20knji%C5%BEevnoga%20jezika-Nakladni%20zavod%20Globus%20%282009%29.pdf, Matasović on the Central South Slavic concept: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/198263, Tafra on the periodization of Croatian language: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/116823, Dubravka Sesar on the 18th C Slavic languages "fog" & the Croatian position:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/7139, Grčević on modern German Serbo-Croatism:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/219463, Ivić on linguistic geography and historical dialectology- work from the 1950s, but still valuable (in Serbian Cyrillic):https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/5418/ivic.lingvisticka.geografija.1957.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y;, Grčević on Vuk Karadžić's reform of Serbian language:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/68919, Lisac on Croatian dialects: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaced2b6uws3llmilasmnioh3avl5vy2qtgkpd3ksgpchw6pyk2ah7pc?filename=Josip%20Lisac%20-%20Hrvatska%20dijalektologija%202.%20%C4%8Cakavsko%20narje%C4%8Dje-Golden%20marketing%20-%20tehni%C4%8Dka%20knjiga%20%282009%29.pdf; https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecsnnemrcb4tg3qhscqqy3y7apjdfmrngln4yi7vdgmlqadbvjspo?filename=Josip%20Lisac%20-%20Hrvatska%20dijalektologija%201.%20Hrvatski%20dijalekti%20i%20govori%20%C5%A1tokavskog%20narje%C4%8Dja%20i%20hrvatski%20govori%20torla%C4%8Dkog%20narje%C4%8Dja-Golden%20marketing%20-%20tehni%C4%8Dka%20knjiga%20%282003%29.pdf, Okuka on Serbian dialects: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedzumdqu26h65qmc6kikd5j3mmhtj7r5nf2rj4ye2q5oc2wyqirtu?filename=Milo%C5%A1%20Okuka%20-%20Srpski%20dijalekti.pdf So, there are tons of modern and universally accepted scientific books & articles- but one has to read them & draw conclusions. These are just a more significant texts for those interested in editing Wikipedia languages pages. Mir Harven (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The name of the language

Ponor deletes the references and asks me to quote what is written there. That is why I quote here what is written in reference 21 because it also contains quotes from other mentioned references. They all discuss the language naming in the 21st century in Slavic studies (which of course includes English). As can be seen from those quotes, WP:SYNTH cannot apply to these references.

"Mørk (2002) podsjeća u predgovoru Serbokroatisk grammatik da se radi o »južnoslavenskom jeziku kojim govori većina stanovništva u bivšim jugoslavenskim republikama Bosni, Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori i Srbiji, a koji je uvijek bio poznat kao ’srpskohrvatski jezik’«. Oznaci s crticama zamjera: »Novi naziv ’bosanski/hrvatski/srpski’ je po mom mišljenju sasvim neprikladan da zamijeni tradicionalni naziv ’srpskohrvatski jezik’. Što označava kosa crtica? I? Ili? I/ili?«. Zaključuje da za imenovanje studija nije prikladna oznaka ’bosanski/hrvatski/srpski’ kao što nije prikladna ni oznaka ’srednjojužnoslavenski’. Ističe da su nazivom srpskohrvatski obuhvaćene sve »varijante tog jezika: ’srpska’, ’hrvatska’, ’crnogorska’, ’bosanska’. Tako je uostalom uvijek i bilo. Ništa se to nije promijenilo s raspadom Jugoslavije - bez obzira što nacionalistički bosanski Muslimani ili Hrvati smatrali i tvrdili«. Zato autor sumira da je naziv srpskohrvatski i dalje najprikladnija oznaka kako za jezik tako i za imenovanje studija (isto v. i u Mørk 2008: 296).

Jacobsen (2006: 319) također kritizira imenovanje jezika ili studija »bosanski-hrvatski-srpski jezik«, kao i zahtjeve da se podijele »srpskohrvatske studije u hrvatske, odnosno srpske studije«. Nedostaje objašnjenje za mijenjanje, a oni koji bi se odlučili za promjenu dužni su dati objašnjenje »zašto to nisu mnogo ranije učinili«. Jer npr. 70-ih ili 80-ih godina nitko strane slaviste nije tjerao »da zadrže naziv srpskohrvatski« (ibid.: 320). I Obst (2004: 212) smatra opravdanim da se i dalje »koristi naziv ’srpskohrvatski’ u tradicionalnom smislu, na kraju krajeva i zato da se izbjegnu nezgrapne formulacije poput ’srpski i/ili hrvatski’, ’hrvatski i/ili srpski’, ’hrvatski-srpski-bosanski’ ili čak ’hrvatski-srpski-bosanski-crnogorski’«. Dosjetki da se jezik naziva BHS Šipka (2003: 272) zamjera »onda bismo zaista imali kuriozum - skraćenicu kao ime jezika«.

/.../

Nitko nije zahtijevao niti danas zahtijeva da laici koriste dvodijelnu oznaku. Kao što je već rečeno, riječ je o znanstvenom nazivlju, a ono se ne zasniva na narodskome jer »doduše, može svaki narod svoj idiom nazivati kako mu drago, ali lingvistika ne smije bez preispitivanja preuzeti svako imenovanje koje je među laicima omiljeno« (Gröschel 2003: 169). Jacobsen (2006: 320) navodi da »konfuziju oko naziva jezika su stvorile političke elite pojedinih zemalja« s južnoslavenskih prostora koje vrše ’odozgo’ pritisak i na inozemna sveučilišta da mijenjaju nazive studija. Vlastitim iskustvom iz proteklih petnaest godina ilustrira »kako je jedan politički režim nastojao da nametne svoje poglede stranim« sveučilištima. Vlade pojedinih novonastalih država i dotične nacionalne filologije ciljano zamagljuju granicu između znanstvenog i narodskog nazivlja. Jacobsen zato podsjeća kako laički »i ranije je bilo uobičajeno da se kaže za nekog da govori ’srpski’ / ’hrvatski’ / ’bosanski’ / ’crnogorski’«, što nije isključivalo ni onda ni danas da to znanstveno znači »da ta osoba govori srpskohrvatskim (standardnim) jezikom. Radi se dakle o dva nivoa«, što nacionalno angažirani jezikoslovci namjerno prešućuju. Stoga Jacobsen kritizira južnoslavenske filologe koji poistovjećuju znanstveni i narodski nivo (ovaj posljednji je postao i službeno-politički), i koji naziv srpskohrvatski danas tabuiziraju.

/.../

O daljnjem nazivanju jezika srpskohrvatskim Gröschel kaže (2009: 350): »U dogledno vrijeme ne može se računati s time da će službeno fiksirani nazivi srpski, hrvatski, bosanski i crnogorski jezik nestati iz jezičnih paragrafa u postjugoslavenskim ustavima. To ne treba iritirati slavistiku, posebno ne stranu slavistiku, među ostalima ni njemačku, kojoj se još uvijek pripisuje neka vrsta vodeće funkcije. Zamijeniti ime srpskohrvatski jezik značilo bi kapitulaciju pred političkim pritiscima iz zemalja nasljednica Jugoslavije«. Uzimajući za primjer situaciju s njemačkim jezikom u Austriji i Švicarskoj, nastavlja: »Kad bi - iz bilo kakvih razloga - političke vođe tih zemalja [Austrije i Švicarske] odlučile svoj službeni jezik ubuduće nazivati austrijski i švicarski [...], to bi lingvistička germanistika primila do znanja samo slegnuvši ramenima, a ne bi zbog toga odbacila svoju koncepciju varijanata standardnog njemačkog jezika«.

/.../

Budući da naziv srpskohrvatski ima »dugu tradiciju u slavistici - kreirao ga je Jakob Grimm, proširio Slovenac Jernej Kopitar u prvoj polovini 19. stoljeća, davno prije nastanka Jugoslavije - on dakle nije dužan nužno nestati činom raspada te države« (Thomas 2003: 319)."

--Darigon Jr. (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

First and foremost, I don't think this article is the place to fight the S-C / BCMS naming battle, that's so WP:UNDUE. The term "S-C language" is already in the first sentence, and again in the last sentence of the lead, where we say something along the lines

• "...called -THIS-, but in modern times some people, for some reason, prefer to call it -THAT-".

Your edit adds 3000 bytes to say

• "...called -THIS-, but in modern times some people, for some reason, prefer to call it -THAT-. But in modern times some people also call it -THIS-".

Do you think repeating -THIS- so many times will persuade people that -THIS- is the right name? And what's the thing with adding so many cherry-picked, non-English sources with some opinions? Does the mere number of sources give the repeated statement more weight, in your opinion?

Your added sentence paraphrases the previous sentence, which by itself is weird because nothing like that is actually said in the sources, so you're doing WP:SYNTH. We don't do WP:SYNTH here.

I, honestly, don't see how your addition improves the article. As a reader, I'd think "oh, what a WP:POVPUSH". Ponor (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ponor. This article is NOT the place to fight the naming war and until the international community of linguists (not just former Yugoslavian ones) settles on a standard order for the three components of this one language (Montenegrin is probably not going to be included), we are better off using the form that is still the most common--SC. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you both that this article is not the place to fight the naming war. Since Ponor made a comment, I just want to clarify something. First, there is no WP:SYNTH because the sentence (with references) Ponor deleted reads:

"On the other hand, some linguists explain why the name "Serbo-Croatian" is still more appropriate in linguistics in the 21st century."

And that's exactly what the above quotes from the references do (can be checked using Google translate).

Second, the deleted sentence is not a repetition, but adds new information. Its context is: the term SC "is controversial for native speakers", "and names such as Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS) are used by linguists and philologists in the 21st century". That edit by Ponor suggests that the name SC belongs to the 20th century, i.e. the past. That's why I added the above sentence with references where some linguists explain why the name SC is still more appropriate in linguistics in the 21st century. --Darigon Jr. (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A trio of points. First, this still isn't the place for commenting on or describing the options for "Serbo-Croatian". If readers are curious about it, that's why we provide that term with a blue link that they can follow to the other article. The most that this article should contain is a footnote following the first use of S-C that says, basically, "The controversy concerning the name "Serbo-Croatian" is described at Serbo-Croatian." Second, the amount of non-English in your references is simply excessive, especially when it isn't directed at this article and its content, but at the S-C issue. Third, text that isn't in English must ALWAYS be translated with the English text following the non-English text. Sending the reader to Google Translate is not acceptable in the English Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. --Darigon Jr. (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This looks like potential content that could be elaborated on Serbo-Croatian § Name. –Vipz (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Croatian Cyrillic script

Croatian language is written in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts, as in this case it would be written as hrvatski / хрватски. 2603:8001:B202:3294:1E9:2C20:D1BF:CD23 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Modern Croatian is not written in Cyrillic, unlike older variants. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bosnian is not written in Cyrillic either, unlike Serbian and Montenegrin. 2603:8001:B202:3294:D8DC:C9B5:1510:A987 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Cyrillic is recognized as one of two official scripts of the Bosnian standard language. Same is not the case for Croatian. –Vipz (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bosnian Wikipedia is written only in the Latin script, and has no option to convert to the Cyrillic script, unlike the Serbian Wikipedia which has the option to convert from Cyrillic to Latin. 2603:8001:B202:3294:E4EE:7D48:DFC0:A1B1 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the fact that Bosnian legally uses two scripts. — Hijérovīt | ^þⰁ_č 13:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)