Jump to content

Talk:Croatian language/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Enough

This article is now full protected.

I am counting up how many editors violated the 1RR restriction here in the last few days. It appears that you all are now subject to the discretionary sanctions, and can be blocked, banned from the article, or topic banned entirely. Details and potential sanctions are under review.

Please stop fighting and come get an uninvolved administrator to review before things get to the point that all active editors on the article are facing being banned from the article or topic entirely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't generalize please. I didn't breake any rule and have never been involved in any edit conflict. --Flopy (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Abusive Njegos greatest Montenegrin poet, whose compatriots were under Turkish occupation and the terror they have been called poetry in the struggle for freedom, not just an arbitrary libel, but evidence of malicious ambitions. Stambuk insulting entire nations. And not since yesterday. It also advertises the specter of the past - dead Serbo-Croat language spoken only he and no more.

Insolent ambition is to single person, whole nations (Montenegrins, Croats, Bosniaks) offend in this way and that they deny and disparage their languages.--Markus cg1 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@Markus cg1: Nobody has the right not to be offended, especially by truth. Of course, wiki medium is a bit different than that of freedom-sanctioned real-world ones, but in this particular instance - of The Mountain Wreath describing and moreover encouraging something that would by today's standards be described as ethnic cleansing - is far from that. Nations are imaginary constructs created by individuals, and they have no rights whatsoever. You cannot "insult a nation". Such generalizations are very dangerous. There are/were similar legitimizations for killing people of different skin color, different language, different religion etc. in all the cultures since the time immemorial. In the Bible, Vedas, Quran...not to mention what was broadcasted in the media during the 1990s in post-Yugoslav countries. That is not just my personal opinion - lots of foreigners observing the situation from a neutral perspective see it as such. I remember quite clearly how Tim Judah in his book The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia analyzed that particular piece in accordance with my interpretation. There was a reference from Montenegrin Bosniak who was forced to learn by heart some verses from that work during the schooling, and how he felt doing it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert -thank you very much. You officially make this article exclusive property of Kwamikagami.Not that he has not used to behave before as such! (Sarcasm!)--78.1.116.102 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

new section

Hi Chip,

Sorry for the edit conflict; I'd though you were finished with the new section.

I'm moving part of the 2nd paragraph here, as I have some concerns with it:

1. Some words from the Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects have entered standard Croatian,[1][2]
2. and Croatian is written in the Latin alphabet, while Serbian is written in Cyrillic.
3. The ISO regards Croatian as a language that is part of a Serbo-Croatian "macrolanguage".[3]

(1) is dubious (this is one of those claims which is frequently exaggerated, and which AFAIK advocates have been unable to justify on this talk page in the past); (2) is inaccurate (Serbian is also written in Gaj's Latin alphabet, perhaps more frequently than in Cyrillic, and Bosnian and Montenegrin are written almost exclusively in Latin; (3) is IMO irrelevant: "macrolanguage" is ISO jargon that IMO does not belong here, since nothing in the article depends on the concept.

— kwami (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the ec, I saw your change and though hang on, edited with that in mind. Classic think I'm done, do it, and then realise something's not as it should be.
As for the other points, I suppose it's mostly up to WP:RS. It'd be good to mention those somewhere, even if just as "claims", as to show the argument. As for the ISO, I included that as I thought it was a different standpoint. I'm fine without it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the registers differ in which dialects are included in which, though this doesn't affect the standard much. The local dialect has affected Serbian, in that Serbian Serbian is mostly ekavian now, though Bosnian Serbian remains ijekavian like Croatian. I don't know of a similar influence of Zagreb dialect on Croatian; claims of Kajkavian influence AFAIK do not extend to all of standard Croatian and are more importantly not exclusive to Croatian. That could get quite involved and is perhaps best left to the dedicated article. I corrected the Latin/Cyrillic thing and put it back in. — kwami (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that has been debunked in many sources (Greenberg, Kordić etc.) Kajkavian and Čakavian lexical elements in "standard Croatian" number in single digits. There are 100 times more Turkish borrowings than from those dialects. Does it mean that Croatian is also based on Turkish? Of course not. The purpose of emphasizing the "contributions" of those dialects is to create an effect of standard Croatian being a "pan-Croatian" standard. Some kind of koine based on a mixture of all local speeches that would serve the purpose of forging a common identity, but not on anyone's particular expense. But in the 21st century that's just a misguided effort and a bunch of propaganda. The proper way to do it was in the 19th century, and those who tried to do it failed (Illyrians deliberately sacrificed Kajkavian whose vibrant literary tradition was flourishing around Croatian capital Zagreb, and literary Čakavian was pretty much dead by that time..) In the end only Štokavian prevailed. The self-denial of tridialectalism goes to extreme proportions sometimes - for examples some Croatian "linguists" have been claiming that standard Croatian has no dialectal basis!!! That BS is believe it or not even claimed on Croatian wikipedia article on Croatian language. See this edit for example. For 5 years the article stated that standard Croatian was based on Neoštokavian Ijekavian - Like Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. But then last year somebody made an edit stating that it has "no dialectal basis" (nema dijalekatske osnovice). It is indicative that that edit was made anonymously, and silently patrolled few minutes afterwards - they don't even have the courage to sign in and stand by that claim!!! To cut the long story short: some of these inaccurate statements are not merely the result of ignorance - they're deliberately propagated lies, which should be scrutinized in a wider context of nationalist myths. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Ivan. Notwithstanding Kubura's effort to alert me to the supposedly large influence of Kaykavian and Chakavian in standard Croatian (off the top of my head from Kubura's reply to my question about Kajkavian and Čakavian elements, "tjedan" is one of the few dialectisms (here from Kajakavian) that has established itself securely in standard Croatian), it's contradicted by the following description from pages 120-122 in Robert Greenberg's book "Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration" (Oxford, 2004) and confirmed by Ivan's comments as well as my experiences when learning BCMS/SC from a book published in 1999 as a "Croatian" course.
For the Croats, the status of Kajkavian and Čakavian has continued to be a factor in determining the future identity of the Croatian standard language. Bašić (2001b: 91) synthesized the current thinking regarding the relationship of these two dialects to Croatia's standard Štokavian in the following manner:
The developmental patterns that are left for the Croatian language and orthography - the Neo-Štokavian ijekavian base enriched with Kajkavian and Čakavian material and a moderately phonological writing system - are good, and it is worth perfecting them.
Katičić (1997: 183) was even more emphatic and unequivocal regarding the importance of the Kajkavian and Čakavian components in standard Croatian:
[...]
While this idealized picture of the development of a Croatian language enriched with its Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects originated with the leaders of the Illyrian Movement, Croat language planners have done little since the 1960s to increase these dialectal elements in their language. [...] Thus, despite recent interventions, the Croatian standard has remained resistant to regional dialectisms. [...] While Čakavian or Kajkavian dialectal forms are more likely to creep into standard Croatian than standard Serbian, the fact remains that very few dialectisms have actually entered Croatian from either of these two dialects. Moreover, distinctly Kajkavian and Čakavian phonological and morphological features are absent from the standard Croatian language. Even in the lexical domain, according to the Savjetnik [Ed.: reference book on standard Croatian], only a "certain number" ("odredjeni broj") of words from these dialects had been absorbed into the standard Croatian lexical stock, [...] The authors of the Savjetnik confirmed that only in terms of lexicon can Croatian be simutaneously Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkvian, and that by contrast, in the realm of accentuation, the Croatian language is solely Neo-Štokavian in nature (Barić et al. 1999: 70). [...]
Croat linguists since 1991 seem more open than ever to increasing the role of the peripheral dialects, although this openness has not been matched by a noticeable increase in the Kajkavian and Čakavian components of the new Croatian standard.
With this in mind, I question how accurate it is in this article's section on sociopolitcal considerations to make mention of standard Croatian taking on as many Kajkavian or Čakavian features as is implied. Given Greenberg's comments, it seems to be far less than what some Croats and the prescriptivists / language planners would like for everyone to believe. Kwami, Greenberg's observations above are basically an elaboration of your sentiment expressed earlier that the place or importance of Kajkavian and Čakavian elements in standard Croatian is exaggerated. Vput (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your lies are disgusting. It makes us puke. When Serb 'ćuti' it means that Serb 'keeps quiet' or 'says nothing'. When Croat 'ćuti' it means that Croat 'feels'. It would be civilized for you Serbs to start 'da ćutite' (to keep quiet) and not spread lies so we Croats will 'ćutiti' better (to feel better). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.153.114 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Dictioanary of differences between Croatian and Serbian language -> [1]

Differences between Serbian language and Croatian language on phonetical, morphological, syntaxical and orthographical level -> [2]

These go only for standards. Linguist Babić was precise - these 2 languages differ in 20% - similar as Spanish and Portugese. But 'Croatian language' is not only Croatian Neoštokavian standard. Language has its history and developement and that's where Kajkavian and Čakavian belong as well as Štokavian. None of Croatian dialects (Čakavian, Kajkavian, Štokavian) has anything to do with Serbs. Also important: Croatian standard was not taken from some artificially called 'Serbo-Croatian'. It is opposite. In lack of historical literature, Serbs borrowed a lot from Croatian language, which gave them possibility to invent term 'S-H'. In fact, Serbian language should be called S-H. Not Cro language. That's exactly why only Serbs and pro-Serbs insist on S-H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.153.114 (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some randomly-googled illiterate blog posts ridden with elementary errors reflecting not only the author's colossal ignorance but also agenda-driven fabrication of "differences" surely are a definite proof...right. Spanish and Portuguese are orders of magnitude more different than standard C and S. For starters, they have different grammars, while all of the differences in grammar of B/C/S/M can fit on 1 page of paper. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
But you have no idea what are dufferences between Spanish and Portugese, haven't you? Do you speak any? I can speak Spanish which means that I understand 99% of Portugese. Grammar differences of these two also fit in 1 page. The most of differences are pronounciations, like Portugese 'sh' voice instead of Spanish 's' voice etc., and some sufixes. You are the last person to speak about 'colossal ignorance' and 'agenda-driven fabrication' - the latter is exactly what you have done with Croatian language in English wikipedia. One does not have to be a linguist to see that a list of differences above is OK, it's enough to be a speaker of one of it. It's even too short, and list of differences between vernacular variances of C and S would be probably 5 times bigger. You have some big problem with honesty. 83.131.86.9 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference in edit summary

Kwamikagami, references must be given in the text, not in the edit summary [3]. Author's name also, and inline citation, if possible. Kubura (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Other sources can be listed to corroborate that claim. Are you disputing its accuracy perhaps? Before the 19th century there was never a single standard shared among the Slavic peoples descendants of which today self-identify as Croats. They were several regional literary traditions based on various local dialects, but never a supraregional standard. That is fairly common knowledge. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Never a supraregional standard"??
E.g., Babić, Brozović and Krasić speak about the standardization of Croatian language. Krasić speaks about that in Počelo je u Rimu - Katolička obnova i normiranje hrvatskoga jezika u XVII stoljeću, Brozović in Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Babić in Hrvatski jučer i danas. Kubura (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Babić and Brozović can fantasize about a pre-19th century standard language, but the truth is it never existed. Show me a work written in it, list writers using it, and grammars and dictionaries describing it. Reality and nationalist make-believe don't necessarily go hand in hand.
On your reference to Kašić and Vatican propaganda effort - well it was an effort, but an unsuccessful one. Štokavian hasn't really caught on until the 19th century. Vatican was only interested in spreading its religious propaganda, converting more infidels to "proper" faith and collecting tithe, not in forging a nation or a common literary language. Kašić was commissioned to write a grammar of the most spoken speech solely for such purpose. Of course that some Croatian nationalists, in retrospect, reinterpret that in some romantic nation-building fashion, but we can't be fooled by that naivety. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ivan Štambuk is clearly confusing Croats with Serbs. Common knowledge Good one :) Čeha (razgovor) 08:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Citing from Kordić 2010:71-22:
Prije standardizacije nije postojala »jezična zajednica« s opsegom koji joj kroatisti pripisuju iz današnje perspektive, nego je postojalo nekoliko jezičnih zajednica: kajkavska, čakavska i štokavska. U 19. st. su čakavska jezična zajednica i dio kajkavske jezične zajednice koji se nalazi na prostoru današnje Hrvatske prihvatili da koriste štokavski. Potaknute prednostima nadregionalne komunikacije čakavska i kajkavska jezična zajednica su postupile kao i brojne druge jezične zajednice u svijetu, a o poticaju kojim su se rukovodile Kloss (1976: 306) kaže da je »u mnogo slučajeva doveo do toga da su se čitave jezične zajednice dobrovoljno uključile u narode drugih jezika, odrekavši se toga da njihov vlastiti jezik bude u upravi, novinama, školama itd. priznat i njegovan«.
Uzimanjem štokavskoga za nadregionalni jezik svih slojeva društva premošćene su ne samo jezične razlike između kajkavske, čakavske i štokavske regije nego i jezične razlike između višeg i nižeg društvenog sloja koje su postojale u ondašnjoj Srbiji. Tako da se o nadregionalnoj jezičnoj zajednici može govoriti tek od druge polovine 19. stoljeća, a ni tada ona nije postala hrvatska jer je obuhvatila sve one Slavene koji su se u 20. stoljeću oformili u hrvatsku, srpsku, bošnjačku i crnogorsku naciju.
Tvrdnja da je stoljećima prije 19. st. »jezik franjevaca« bio standardni jezik nije točna jer, kao prvo, taj jezik nije obuhvaćao kajkavsko područje, a kao drugo, tim jezikom su pisali franjevci, što znači da se u neštokavskim regijama radilo o sociolektu jer se njime služio samo jedan sloj društva a ne čitavo stanovništvo, npr. čakavsko stanovništvo se nije služilo njime bez obzira na to što je neki franjevac čakavac znao štokavski. Standardni jezik je postao moguć tek s uvođenjem obaveznog školovanja za široke mase jer jedino obaveznim školovanjem se moglo obične ljude kojima je materinski čakavski ili kajkavski navesti da svi nauče i nadregionalni jezik.
There you go :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How it is possible that a person like Ivan Štambuk creates wiki policy about languages? Just look at his expressions in this page and archives. It is full of hate and rage against Croats. Typical Serbian extremist. And here you can see another dimension of Serbian nationalism - against Vatican - namely, when Serbian nationalists hate Croats and western world, they usually upgrade it with rage against Vatican and Catholics. Here you can see typical presentation of it. Shameful. Tragedy for something which ought to be encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.153.114 (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't "create wiki policies". I (almost) don't even edit this page at all. I just provide useful commentaries, mostly debunking various forms of nationalist propaganda, which is useful since not many here have the courage or first-hand knowledge to do so. Like one you put above: you simply cannot fathom that there is a Croat who disagrees with you. Not everybody believes in the fairy tales of Croats being descendants of Iranians, speaking "Croatian language" from 6th century CE etc. Your comments reflect a typical victimology of a person exhibiting cognitive dissonance. My rage against Vatican has more to do with hatred towards institutionalized religion, in particular how it relates to nation-building. I assure you that I loathe Orthodox Christianity just as much :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
User contributions tool says that you do create wiki policy concerning South Slavic languages. That tool shows everything you have ever edited here and elsewhere. 78.0.153.114 is right on that part. 83.131.86.9 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One more detail: Ivan Štambuk define Croatian linguists as Croatian nationalists. Somewhere at this page he says the same even about Katičić who is Europe and world-wide known linguist because of his contribution to common knowledge about history of Indo-European languages (!?). In the same time he cites quazi-linguist Kordić whose one of "linguistic" arguments is that Croatia is nazi-state like Hitler's Germany!? Wiki administrators, please open you eyes. A few bandits conquered this page and blocked Croats to write about their own culture. Do something. 78.0.153.114 (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Croatian linguists (not all) are nationalists. Some of them - like Stjepan Babić - are not even that: they simply use nationalism as a revenue generator, which can be seen from their publishing history where they were selling "brotherhood and unity" with one and indivisible Serbo-Croatian, when Communism was the order of the day. Katičić mostly deals with anthropology, folklore, culture and stuff - he is not much of a Indo-Europeanist in a linguistic sense. He as an old man whose time has long gone by. Some of his recent claims, like e.g. in the interview in Vijenac where he claimed that Serbian language is not Štokavian, demonstrate that he has gone completely nuts. Look dude, we cannot ignore linguists that you don't like, and accept linguists that you do like. WP:NPOV policy requires that all the articles be written in a neutral point of view. Which means that the general consensus of the field is presented in the article as a main line of thought (i.e. that what is today called "Croatian language" is a Croatian national variety of Serbo-Croatian language), and other minor/fringe theories and counter-arguments are given some treatment too. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well this is realy awfull. Štambuk puted some unsourced qoute here which proves something? As for the rest, I agree with 78.0.153.114. Shamfull behavior of some POV pushers. Which are for some unknown reasons permited to do so on english wiki. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've put the source directly before the quote. It proves a lot because it refers just to the statements above where you and othes claimed that there was non-Neoštkavian form of "standard Croatian" sometime in the history. There wasn't. There were bunch of regional literary traditions in local dialects which were not only mutually unintelligible, but whose speakers didn't thought of themselves as sharing a common imaginary identity ("nation", "ethnicity" or whatever). At least I've provided a citation that corroborates by claim. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It's nothing strange that main argument became politics. Kordić is an author whose scientifical opus is not 'Hrvatski jezik' – 'Croatian language'. It is 'Nacioanalizam i jezik' – 'Nationalism and langauge'. Who does write a book about the language and base it on nationalism? Maybe I'm dreaming but shouldn’t be here focus on linguistics? Language is a living being as well as people who speak it. It changes all the time. Croatian language has its history in all 3 dialects, literal development - early inscriptions (9th century), Čakavian (13th), Štokavian (14th), Kajkavian (16th century). Besides Latin and Western Cyrillic, there were also 2 scripts used exclusively by the Croats – 9th century Triangular Glagolitics and 12th century Rectangular Glagolithic, the latter was standardized in the 13th. Final standardization in Štokavian, Latin script (19th). It’s developing even now as well as any other living language in the world. And what is also important that language was in all 3 dialects called the same name: Illyric or Croatian. When you say that there were no Croats before 19th century you probably candidate yourself for the Guiness reward in spreading lies. Shame on you.
Kordić starts from politics to prove some politics and avoid serious liguistics. You Ivan Štambuk are doing the same. The most of your argumentation is not scientific, it is political. It says who you are and what you are.
S-H term is discrimination toward Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Slovenes. And Serbs too. With the Bulgarians, the closest to the Macedonains by language, they all make group of the South Slavic languages. That is the only proper categorization. Croatian have many lexical relations to Slovene as well as Serbian has many relations to Macedonian.
I would rather escape anything personally, but when one spends 2 years of his life to create his POV language categorization for internet encyclopedia then something is wrong here. You people should be encylopedists and not politicians, am I wrong? Those who report what is out there, not those who teach the others their own positions. In last 2 years Croatian language have become Serbo-Croatian in English wikipedia and Croatian language transformed from language of the people to language of the 'nationalists' who imagined something. Thanks to one or two wikipedians supported by remote vote-machine of a few, in occasions dozen. Argumentation and result: Croatian nation is a nation of the nationalists. Where is the end? Are all nations in the word - nationalists? How much nationalistic wikipedia is... Wow. Maybe Serbo-English wikipedia sounds more objectively? Ha? Or Serbo-Egyptian Culture. Maybe you should have wiki:Serbo- prefix; etymology: shorter than Superbo- ; for super objective wiki things, those much more objective than reality is. I’m joking of course. Unfortunately. 83.131.86.9 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Snježana Kordić reported

about Snježana Kordić and her bookread here .She was reported for comparison of modern Croatia to Nazi Germany.That is far enough to describe her as an expert.


--Kennechten (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The so called Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće is a right-wing think-tank, a congregation of fascistoid NDH sympathizers who have nothing better to do than perpetually issue some kind of worthless Serbophobic and Yugophobic "declarations" that nobody gives a damn about. Their charges will of course be dismissed lest EU would anally probe Biškupić's ministry. Your comment above is an equal pile of BS - I've read the book, and nowhere does it compare modern Croatia to Nazi Germany. It compares efforts of some Croatian linguists during the Tuđman's dictatorship in the 1990s to efforts of some linguists in Nazi and pre-Nazi Germany (it should also be noted that the purist efforts ceased once the Führer realized that he doesn't like being criticized), namely the radical purist notion of loanwords being "dirty", somehow "contaminating" the language and their speakers, and thus required to be violently suppressed and replaced by neologisms, all executed by official state decree.
It is most ridiculous that Croatian nationalists find it somehow "insulting" that their tinkering with language is perceived as something backward and primitive - because it is. It is ironic that their radical purist actions in the 1990s alone were 100x more thorough and systematic in scope than anything that the Communists did in 1945-1990. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Nice attitude! LOL All Croatian linguists are idiots nationalists and scum. Except those who agree with you.--Kennechten (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivan, how can anyone take you seriously with such an approach and using such language. Please stop with this, stop trowing up bile on these pages. Vodomar (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy

The North Germanic languages are often cited as proof of the aphorism "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". The differences in dialects within the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark can often be greater than the differences across the borders, but the political independence of these countries leads continental Scandinavian to be classified into Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish in the popular mind as well as among most linguists. This is also because of the strong influence of the standard languages, particularly in Denmark and Sweden. Even if the language policy of Norway has been more tolerant of rural dialectal variation in formal language, the prestige dialect often referred to as "Eastern Urban Norwegian", spoken mainly in and around the Oslo region, can be considered to be quite normative. The creation of Nynorsk out of dialects after Norway became independent of Denmark in 1814 was an attempt to make the linguistic divisions match the political ones. (Taken from: North Germanic languages) Analogy to this article is clear.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. There are different dialect and national dynamics involved as we have made clear many, many times above. Please read the comments that have already been made on this matter. --Taivo (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article is disputed

This article needs to be written in a neutral language, and every standpoint needs to be taken into consideration. All sources should be included in this article, and it can not be the case that Croatian sources and other sources that promote the argument that Croatian is a separate language are to be discounted as nationalistic ramblings. The NPOV tag needs to stand there until this requirement is met. This talk page has so many arguments to support the NPOV tag, just look at the amount of text and the disputes around this article. Vodomar (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, tags stand until the issue has been addressed, not until you're satisfied.
The issue has been addressed, multiple times. If you have specific proposals, pls present them. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Croatian - the 24th official language of the EU

Now is confirmed. Croatian will be the 24th official language of the EU, not "Serbocroatian" [4]. Who doesn't believe me or doesn't undesteand Croatian Štambuk can translate. Requirements for "Serbocroatian" were not accepted. --Flopy (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A joyfull day, indeed :) --Čeha (razgovor) 10:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would appear to settle it.
However, I'm having difficulty with the last paragraph. Could someone with colloquial English translate please?
Uostalom, Hrvatska je svojim istočnim susjedima podijelila prijevod europskoga zakonodavstva na hrvatski, da ga ne moraju iznova prevoditi. Takva se štedljiva praksa može nastaviti i nakon njihova ulasku u EU, kada će Hrvatska već godinama sjediti za zajedničkim europskim stolom.
It would appear that Croatian will be the name of the official language, but that if & when other SC states ascend, there will not be translation between them (which would of course be silly), also that documents from other languages will not necessarily be translated into all of them, except of course for particularly important or basic things such as the constitution. Am I reading it correctly? — kwami (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
no translation will be needed. It is not necessary for Danish-Swedish and vice versa. Why don't you try to umpose the text "Danish is a form of Dano-Swedish as spoken by Danes"??? Could you give a shot??--Kennechten (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The situation of the Scandinavian languages is quite different form the one of Serbo-Croatian. The Scandinavian languages are not fully mutually intelligible[5], whereas the Serbo-Croatian standards are, like the various English or German standards. --JorisvS (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
...Not true at all. Scandinavians understand themselves needing no translation.--Kennechten (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
If repeating yourself is the only thing you can do to 'defend' your opinion instead of address what I've said, you reveal that you just don't know what you're talking about and that you haven't read the article I provided. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the situation first. --JorisvS (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you to read what you present as your source before you include because obviously you are the one who is not familiar with the situation.
As it is vidible here and here the difference between them is no bigger than Croato-Serbian case. But, of course, you anonymous self-proclaimed experts know the best. No matter you are monoglot. --Kennechten (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
From those two wikilinks it's a non sequitur to conclude anything about SC.
I'm sorry for being overly short, making your attention stop in the introduction. Let's read on to the actual study, shall we? There we can see percentages of correct answers for various listeners. Here we can see that Norwegians manage quite well listening to Swedish. But also that listening to Danish, especially for the Swedes, is hard, with only a low percentage of correct answers, significantly lower than for Dutch people listening to Frisian. From experience I can tell that a speaker of Dutch can make out fragments of spoken Frisian, enough to answer some questions correctly (which is in good agreement with the score in the study), but that this 'intelligibility' isn't very coherent, making a serious conversation impossible. This leads to the conclusion that Swedes cannot in fact make out more than a few good fragments when listening to Danish. The article in the intro also says that there is a bit of a tradition of "semicommunication" among speakers of the Scandinavian languages. Such prior experience aids understanding (receptive bilingualism), increasing intelligibility scores. From this I must thus conclude that there is no "Dano-Swedish language" like you were so eager to suggest. This is very different from the perfect intelligibility (or near-perfect when counting the occasionally different word past which one can easily communicate) between the Serbo-Croatian standards. --JorisvS (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


I would, but as my mother tongue is not Croatian but Serbo-Croatian, I might not understand all of it :P. Still, here's an attempt:
Anyway, Croatia has already distributed to its Eastern neighbors translation of European regulation into Croatian, so that they don't have to translate it again. Such sparing practice can continue even after they join the EU, when Croatia will have sit at the common European table for years.
IOW, you get the gist of it correctly. No such user (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what practical effect this will have on the various standards? Will Croatia translate EU documents using common terminology as much as possible, so that their documents can be shared by all in a spirit of camaraderie? Or will they make them purposefully, and perhaps artificially, inaccessible? Will exclusively Croatian technical calques filter into the technical vocabulary of the other standards, bringing them closer together? — kwami (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm more interested now on what will happen in regards to future Serbian and Montenegrin ascension. Croatia will have a veto power over their memberships, so the politics could be funny. Maybe they'll all use the same translation under different language names? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Serbia and Croatia are best friends now [6] :P. Seriously, they sort of promised not to be assholes in this regard [as Slovenians had been towards them].
@Kwami: I presume, but have no proof, that Serbia and others will "translate" the Croatian documents into Serbian, at least those for wider official use. Croatian technical/bureaucrat jargon and calques can be at times rather unaccessible for others. Still, those costs can be significantly lower than translation from scratch. I don't think that Croatians would purposefully make them closer to or further from the widely understandable terminology -- after all, they made those translations for themselves and the donation was just a gesture of good will. No such user (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's promising. Serbia does seem to have come a long way.
If they're electronic docs, presumably an automated search & replace would be all that's needed? I don't know about making them Cyrillic, though: you'd need a human minder for foreign names which shouldn't be mindlessly transliterated. — kwami (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
As usual kwami you are trying to find every little thing in sources that proofs that there is "SH", also here. They don't need to translate every document on Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian, you said and that's your proof for "SH". Kwami and No such user are just presuming that, you don't know what is going to happen. I think the opposite. I gave you the source for Croatian as official language that is not a presumption and you are trying to find anything that could make that irrelevant. Selective interpretation of sources again nad kwami is using again his sysop tools to force his and his like-minded presons view point. Croatian is not a form of "SH" and also the EU recognized that, but even that is not enough for you. Typical! --Flopy (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
"Using again his sysop tools to force his...view point" is an empty and false accusation, Flopy. If you have proof that Kwami is using his sysop tools incorrectly here (he is not using them at all actually), then present it at WP:AN/I, otherwise you are making false accusations and subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations yourself. Since Croatian and Serbian are one language written in two alphabets, then kwami may be right on what the EU does. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Croatian and Serbian are one language written in two alphabets That seems like rather sloppy categorization to me. I've yet to come to terms with myself as to whether Croatian and Serbian are one language but surely one must acknowledge that the standard languages, as defined by their respective institutions are not carbon copies and cannot be used in formal situations just by switching from one alphabet to the other? Seeing as the documents that have been discussed thus far (judiciary ones) are indeed formal, I fail to see how one can expect either Croatia or Serbia to settle this by using a deprecated and defunct standard nor why any insinuations regarding such a possibility would be relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tty29a (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that a threat Taivu? "Since Croatian and Serbian are one language written in two alphabets, then kwami may be right on what the EU does." - that is again your opinion. You want souces I gave it to you and now you are making presumptions. Sources not presumptions please. --Flopy (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No threat, Flopy, just facts--if you have proof that Kwami is misusing his tools, then prove it at WP:AN/I, otherwise stop your false charges or else you may be subject to civility and personal attack charges yourself. And the point has been proven with reliable sources over and over and over again that Croatian and Serbian are not only mutually intelligible forms of a single language, they are mutually intelligible forms of a single dialect of that language. You are just ignoring the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No, you are ignoring my sources. Whatever I give it's "irrelevant" or "proofs" your view point. The same now. --Flopy (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Flopy, I have no idea what you're talking about. I had added to the article that the EU might not accept Croatian and Serbian as separate languages. You gave us a good source that they will accept at least Croatian under that name. I accept your source, and the earlier claim has been removed. What, exactly, is so egregious about me accepting the evidence you provided? — kwami (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I think I get it. You're upset that we use the English name for the abstand language. Flopy, this is English Wikipedia. We write in English. I'm sorry if you don't like the way the language works, but the only solution I see to that is to not write on English Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The same source on English [7]. The EU recognized that Croatian is a separate language and didn't accepted "SH". But in the article is stil the sentence that Croatian is a form of "Serbocroatian". --Flopy (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that's the same source? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
My point from this source: Croatia completed another chunk of accession negotiations with the European Union Friday, bringing the country closer to membership and giving it - among other things - official EU recognition of its language.--Flopy (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Noones arguing that point, it will be an official EU language when Croatia joins. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
No one is arguing that Croatian will be another of the labelled languages in the EU. That's a political decision by the EU. The issue that you, Flopy, fail to come to terms with, and that is relevant to this article, is that the most common English name for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialect chain is "Serbo-Croatian". You can't deny that fact--whether you think it is "fair" or "just" or not. It is the fact--that chain of dialects is called Serbo-Croatian in English. You also cannot deny the fact that the written standards for Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian are all based on the same dialect of that dialect chain--Shtokavian. These things are just linguistic facts and are based on multiple reliable sources. It doesn't really matter that the EU has decided to recognize "Croatian" as one of the EU languages. It also seems clear from the limited information I've read, that "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" (assuming all three countries enter the EU), will not be treated individually as equals, but as a little group and not every EU document will be translated separately into all three. It seems that documents written in Serbian will not necessarily be "translated" into Croatian and vice versa. Even the EU recognizes that these are just varieties of a single language despite their politically-imposed different names. Croatian is part of Serbo-Croatian. That is just the fact in English. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
"It also seems clear from the limited information I've read, that "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" (assuming all three countries enter the EU), will not be treated individually as equals, but as a little group and not every EU document will be translated separately into all three." Where's that information available? I'm asking because the only place where I see anything close to such a claim is the same article where the reporter compares the difference between Croatian and Serbian to the one between Estonian and Finnish. The reporter doesn't really seem competent, and the claim of Serbo-Croat standard variations possibly not getting their respective translations isn't a quote but a claim made by the reporter himself. Tty29a (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You're looking at this in the spirit of thinking about a common language, but the translators certainly won't be doing that. They'll just translate it into Croatian, and have it proofread according to the modern-day Croatian pravopis, and be done with it. I don't believe the Croatian side will make any sort of an effort to even consider any issues of mutual intelligibility - because they just plain don't care, and are after all not paid to care - their task is just to get it translated for Croatian usage, nothing more, nothing less.
The resulting translations are by default a work protected by copyright, so what the .hr government said is that they'll basically grant a license to .rs, .ba, or .me, rather than the default of prohibiting them from copying it and doing something with it (e.g. use them verbatim, transliterate into Cyrillic, translate them fully into Serbian, or whatever). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Even the EU recognizes that these are just varieties of a single language... Where, Taivo?--89.172.219.15 (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they will not be bothering to translate all Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian documents into the other two "languages" since each is fully intelligible to the others. --Taivo (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that Taivo? Presumption again. I also repeat the question of Tty29a. Give proofs for your claims. --Flopy (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Flopy, are you trying to be difficult? That's what the Croatian-language news article suggested: Serbia won't need to translate all the EU stuff when they accede, because Croatia will have already done it. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Kwami, Taivu read the article about Croatian on German wikipedia, much more acceptable than here, especially this section [8]. Also not a word about Torlakian as Croatian dialect, because it is not. --Flopy (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
So, are you now denying Croats' "right to speak their own language"? If Torlakian is Serbian, then it can't be Croatian? By that logic, since Shtokavian is Serbian, it can't be Croatian, and all the Croats of Zagreb and Mostar speak Serbian.
If you have a ref that ethnic Croats who speak Torlakian admit that they don't speak Croatian, or that the Croatian govt does not recognize them as Croatian speakers, then we would need to change this article. Do you have evidence for that? — kwami (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly kwami, that's only a suggestion, a possiblity and nothing more. As you write me earlier: Wikipedia is not the a crystal ball. Or do you have sources and proofs that Serbia is not going to translate all the EU documents? Ad 2nd point: are you claiming kwami that also German wikipedia is wrong? Only you are right. --Flopy (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Besides that, I don't know what it is about German WP that you think contradicts what we have. — kwami (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I just gave you one example. My point is you are presuming things that you don't know for sure in order to lessen the fact that the EU recognized Croatian, and not "SH". For the EU was not important "common English name". Other Wikis are not so hard-shell like you. --Flopy (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hooray, Flopy, you have finally realized that the English Wikipedia is not the EU and that the English Wikipedia runs on English common usage. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
...on self-proclaimed internet anonymous experts. Yeah, right. We get the point.--Kennechten (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't be happy too early. I put that between "". So, I didn't realize anything. Acta agere. --Flopy (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Protest - Torlakian dialect is not Croatian dialect

Torlakian dialect is not Croatian dialect. Torlakian dialest is Bulgarian, Serbian ad Macedonian. http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/balkan_dialects_1914.jpg http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/bosnia/serbia_macedonia.jpg http://www.experiencefestival.com/torlakian_dialect_-_assimilation_of_torlaks http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Torlakian_dialect::sub::Literature http://www.bulgariagovernment.com/images/bulgaria_simeon_i_893-927.png http://forum.banjaluka.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=51863 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.103.169 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Croats speak "Croatian", even when they speak Torlakian, because "Croatian" is defined ethnically. — kwami (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
What other language is defined this way? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Serbian, Bosnian, Hindi, Urdu. I'm not aware of any others, though there are probably more. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There are examples where there is a dialectal difference between national standards--Thai-Lao, Norwegian-Danish, Russian-Belorussian-Ukrainian, etc.--but in the case of Croatian-Serbian-Bosnian and Hindi-Urdu, the differences are subdialectal, and the primary differences are ethnic/religious. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Which one is Czech/Slovak? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Czech/Slovak is a dialectal difference. --Taivo (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kwami says "Croatian is defined ethnically"!? I've never heard anything like this before. Not even Serbian nationalists say so. This is Kwami's OR. Can we see what linguistic source proposes so? 78.3.45.76 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It sure isn't defined structurally. Do you have another suggestion then? --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It IS defined structurally! The whole mess here started because Ivan Štambuk tried to find some place for Serbo-Croatian term in modern South Slavic categorization. Bearing in mind that S-C was always political pamphlet and not spoken characteristic in reality (which is why it was never linguistically defined, not even in the ages when it was officially "in use" in communist Yugoslavia) this guy, supported by Kwami, simply invented his own definitions. And what is worst of all, their definitions are completely political, not scientifical. that's why all discussion is about politics and not linguistics. This is easy to resolve, linguistics must be used. And some normal and uninvolved administartors must take a charge. Kwami has completely destroyed his position of objective person here. 78.3.45.76 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The Torlakian is added because Krashovani 1) speak Torlak and 2) declare as Croats. I think it is a ridiculous argument because 1) it's only 5,000 people, making it a heavy WP:UNDUE and 2) they were "Croatized" only recently, on the basis of their Catholic faith, but there you go. No such user (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It has no sense. There are Italians in New York and they speak English. Can we say that English is Italian language when spoken by the Italians? Is French Polish when spoken by the Poles? 78.3.45.76 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course it makes no sense: French, English, Italian, Polish are defined structurally, whereas "Croatian" isn't. --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Repeating: Croatian is defined structurally, as well as Serbian is. There are different grammars, different dictionaries and different history of gradients. You obviously have no idea what you just wrote. 78.3.45.76 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian have miniscule structural differences between them, but on the local level, vernacular "Croatian" and vernacular "Serbian" from the same village are identical and only defined by whether the speaker is Catholic and claims to be Croatian or Orthodox and claims to be Serbian. --Taivo (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"Miniscule structural differences" means nothing. Language is defined by much more elements than basic language structure. And there are still significant lexical differences between these 2 languages, constantly ignored by a few of you. As already shown earlier at this page, all differences between C and S make around 20%. There are many "miniscule structural differences" of this kind between other languages in Europe too, but noone doesn't even think about ignoring existance of those languages. The other part of your comment is ridiculous. You can not prove that standard C and S are identical, so you try to prove it with vernacular speaking. It is more stupid since vernacular speeches in Croatia and Serbia are even more distant than standards. One can speak vernacular Croatian or vernacular Serbian or vernacular something else, but one can not speak all vernacularly in the same moment - it wouldn't be vernacularly! Serbs in Croatia who are the members of Serbian minority in Croatia speak vernacular Croatian locally, not Serbian. The same works for Croatian minority in Serbia, they speak vernacular Serbian variances locally. 78.3.45.76 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
So...it's defined by borders? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
No, people speak differently from town to town, region to region. Serbs who are citizens of Croatia usually speak local vernacular Croatian variances and not Serbian. 83.131.89.224 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Anon IP, perhaps you should reword your comment because some of its sentences don't make sense. That "20% lexical difference" is questionable since the only source was shown above to be highly nationalistic and not completely reliable. And, yes, it's quite clear that one person who is Catholic would claim that he is speaking Croatian while his neighbor who is Orthodox would claim to be speaking Serbian, even though neither would be speaking Standard Croatian or Standard Serbian, but both would be speaking the very same vernacular--one would call it "Croatian" and the other would call it "Serbian". Here the difference is defined religiously and not linguistically. It also happens that a Serbian on one side of the border would claim that he is speaking "Croatian" while his brother, living on the other side of the border would claim that he is speaking "Serbian". The extralinguistic issues determine which language he is speaking, not any linguistic features. And there is no comparable situation anywhere else in Europe, where two national standards, based on the very same dialect, are called by different names. This situation is unique in Europe. There are situations where neighboring national standards are based on different dialects of a single language, but no situation where neighboring national standards are based on the same dialect. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Babić is linguist, not politician. "highly nationalistic and not completely reliable." - this is what you said about an expert in linguistics. You people have completely lost your minds - for you a linguist is not reliable, but politician like Kordić is!? Isn't it best description of what is going on here? Another set of lies about "the same dialect" with 2 names is not worth of my comment. But it is nothing new. You have no linguistic proof for one language - 2 names except sources based on politics, that's why you try to discredit linguistic sources and base the whole story on your political sources. Congratualtions. 83.131.89.224 (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I think it should be removed on the basis of WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". It should be noted somewhere that Krashovani declare they mother tongue "Croatian" (do they really?), but that doesn't make Torlakian a "Croatian dialect". No such user (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
As "Croatian language" is defined ethnically and AFAIK these are ethnic Croats (yes, it would be good to have this properly sourced), it would distort the picture by not mentioning it. However, couldn't it be said that only the Krashovani subdialect of Torlakian is also a Croatian dialect? After all, "Croatian language" is defined ethnically and the only ethnic Croats speaking a Torlakian dialect are the Krashovani. --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The statement that "Croatian language is defined ethnically" is not the whole truth, so I suggest refraining from overusing it. I still think that 5,000 people 1000 km away from the homeland are not a fact worth mentioning in the lead. Besides, we know reasonably well that they declare as "Croats", but it is not cited yet that they declare their mother tongue "Croatian". No such user (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
"Croatian language is defined ethnically" is Kwami's OR. Ivan Štambuk and Kwami spread lies about some imaginary one and unique Štokavian dialect within South Slavic languages, which would have different names when spoken by different ethnicites. But there is no such linguistic definition about SS languages, as well as there is no one and unique Štokavian dialect. Croats used Croatian Štokavian variance (Ijekavian, Western Novo-Štokavian)) for Croatian standard with some lexical portions from other Croatian dialects, Čakavian and Kajkavian, Serbs used Serbian Štokavian variance (Ekavian, Eastern Novo-Štokavian) for Serbian standard with some lexical portions from other Serbian dialects, Serbo-Slavic and Torlakian. Any other definition is invalid. A Croat and a Serb can understand each other very well in mutual communication, both languages belong to the same language family (Slavic) and same group (South Slavic), but they use different grammar books and different dictionaries. Especially lexical differences are numerous and it's not secret. Everyone who speaks any of these two languages, knows it very well. Torlakian is simply NOT Crotian dialect, and what is more, Croatian language doesn't include any Torlakian characteristic, while Serbian language does. 78.3.45.76 (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

About Croatian language and Torlakian dialect: "Valja istaknuti da izvorno Hrvati ne govore torlačkim narječjem, koje je tipično jugoistočno srpsko, a neke brojčano slabe hrvatske katoličke jezične enklave u Rumunjskoj te u nekoliko sela na Kosovu (danas u znatnu postotku u Hrvatskoj, donekle i u Bugarskoj) očito su naknadno prihvatile torlački govorni tip od okolnoga srpskog stanovništva jugozapadne Rumunjske odnosno Kosova".
Translation: "It needs to be emphasized that Croats originally don't speak with Torlakian dialect, which is typically Southeastern Serb dialect...."
 Source: Jezik: časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Vol.54, No.2, April 2007, p. 41.–80. [9]. This by Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU), Department of Philology. Kubura (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, what HAZU writes doesn't actually contradict anything. Nowhere does it say that Torlak is NOT spoken currently by Croats. All that this shows is part of mainstream Croatian thinking in which Croats must have nothing to do with the "evil" Serbs or anything perceived as Serbian. According to your translation, HAZU is emphasizing that Croats originally did not speak Torlak. This is likely true but it's as useful or relevant as emphasizing that Serbs originally did not use the Latin alphabet. The problem for HAZU and other Croatian nationalists is that TODAY there are about 5000 people (Krashovani, Croatian Romanians, Romanian Croats - whatever you want to call them) who identify themselves as Croats AND whose native language today is recognizably Torlakian even though their ancestors probably used something other than Torlakian. If the Krashovani were so small or insignificant as some people on this talk page have stated, then the Croatian government wouldn't bother giving Croatian citizenship to this insignificant group of people who seem so removed from the "homeland". Once the Krashovani declare themselves as Croatian then the bureaucrats and politicians in Zagreb award Croatian citizenship to these people (even though we could argue that being Romanian citizens is likely better for now because Romania is already a member of the EU). Again all that we see is that when some Croats find out that part of their ethnos speaks something that has been presented as "un-Croatian" (i.e. Serbian), they come up with excuses or try to downplay it. This kind of selective consideration or cherry-picking is the only way for these particular people to stay true to some idealized national conception but it also shows the degree to which mainstream Croatian philological academia deliberately subordinates empiricism and scientific observation to political concepts and historical narrative/mythology. Vput (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Very childish thinking. Krashovani speak what is spoken in the place they live, and since they live in a part of Serbia where Torlakian is spoken, they speak Torlakian. But it is not dialect of Crotian language just because there is a group of Croats who speak it, it is Serbian dialect since it belongs to Serbian cultural heritage, it is Serbian historical dialect and its pieces were used for Serbian standard. Stop trolling with calling Croats with name - nationalists. The only nationalists here are you, Štambuk etc. A few of you who want to erase Croatian language. That's what nationalism is - hatred for another nation and its culture. Croats who write here, hate noone, they are just people who respect their own culture and language. What you Serbs started here have no future. If you want to destroy our culture, you must first kill us all. 83.131.89.224 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
83.131..., the facts as presented by you above are so obviously refutable and demonstrably incorrect, that it's child's play to expose them. 1) Krashovani live in 'Romania', not Serbia. 2) Torlakian is normally associated with Serbian culture (and has been promoted as such), but it is not "Serbian". You'd have to argue with Bulgarian intellectuals who contend that Torlakian is "Bulgarian". 3) Torlakian was not considered for use in either of the Serbian standards. The Serbian standards (i.e. ekavian and ijekavian) derive from Neo-Shtokavian (Torlak is Old-Shtokavian) with ekavian arising from the imposition of the speech of Belgrade and Novi Sad, and Ijekavian arising from the imposition of the East-Herzegovinian speech of Vuk Karadzic. Neither region has been settled to a significant degree by Torlakian-speakers. To say that Torlak is a significant or decisive part of the Serbian standard is as foolish and ignorant as saying that Chakavian and Kajakvian are significant or decisive parts of the Croatian standard. 4) Nationalism is NOT hatred of another nation and its culture (Chauvinism IS). Nationalism is a kind of herd-mentality in a group of people where this group believes in its attachment to some arbitrary but pre-defined abstract political entity or nation-state. In the Croatian nationalist thinking, being (perceived as) Serbian or associated with Serbs contradicts being Croatian (however "Croatian" is defined by some power-hungry thugs, naïve intellectuals or their followers). Of course nationalism easily leads into chauvinism because nationalism brings the imagined sanctity or "specialness" assigned to one's own national political entity or nation-state which then means that everything that is foreign can only be harmful. The only thing that actually makes any sense in your commentary is that Krashovani speak the language of the area. In this case they obviously mixed in the past and partially assimilated with people who natively spoke Torlakian (probably people from Kosovo or southern Serbia). Yet the Krashovani today often declare themselves as Croats (primarily on their religious affiliation), opine that they speak "Croatian" (I'd be shocked if these people would say that they speak "Serbian" yet your simplistic equation of Torlakian = Serbian would mean that they could only be speaking "Serbian"), and most Croats who are "fortunate" enough to live under Zagreb's thumb are more than happy to keep them in the fold. However your statement about Krashovani speaking just like the local people describes a situation that is normal. If we go to Lika / Krajina and observe without national bias or statist indoctrination how people communicate, neither you nor I could distinguish reliably if the Croatian Serb is speaking "Croatian" or "Serbian" because they're speaking the same language. If we go to Sarajevo it's the same thing. The Bosnian Serb, the Bosnian Croat and the Bosniak speak the same way simply because they live in the same environment (dialectology is driven more by geography NOT ethnicity), yet each person there would say (if indoctrinated enough) that the other two people are speaking different languages thus illustrating that "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" are being ethnically-defined rather than structurally-defined as is done outside the Balkans. Your final shred of machismo basically trying to dare Croatia's enemies to destroy her merely illustrates the degree to which statist indoctrination has warped discussion on a language article with national mythology and state-sanctioned victimhood. It's no different from Serbs who think that the whole world is against them and that everyone questioning Serbian thinking must be fascist scum. Get real and lose the self-pitying and misguided machismo. Vput (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Very well, so you are chauvinist? 78.3.125.37 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
If you wouldn't put a personal insult or insinuation in every single comment (assuming you're the same person as 83.31, although I don't see any difference in approach), serious people might take you more seriously. Such approach tends to produce the contrary effects. Since Torlak is removed from the article now, which was your primary objection, I see no point further pursuing this line of arugment. No such user (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I put Torlak back in the info box, since that lists the dialects of Croatian. If it's not Croatian, then we need to list Serbian as among the languages of the Croat people. — kwami (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL, 500000 Croats in USA and Australia speak English. List English too... 83.131.76.51 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Too bad that these American-/Australian-Croats could only respond that they speak English. Not even they would be stupid enough to confuse "Croatian" with any of the variants of English. In other words if we were to ask them "Are you speaking in English now?" on hearing them speak English, they sure wouldn't reply "Ne! Sada govorimo hrvatski i ne engleski!". The analogy fails but illustrates the lengths to which some Croats react to contradictions of a neatly-packaged but illusory narrative that allows "Croatian" to gather in certain entities on the South Slavic dialectal continuum spoken by natives living within the borders of the banana-shaped political entity called "Republika Hrvatska". Anyway none of these American- or Australian-Croats would appropriate that Germanic language called English as another grouping alongside Kajkavian or Chakavian or Torlakian within "Croatian" as you suggest in your analogy. On the other hand if we were to visit a village of Krashovani and ask them "Govorite li sada hrvatski?" on hearing them speak in their native dialect, they would reply in Torlakian "Da, govorimo sada hrvatski!". So now despite standard Croatian being defined and prescribed as Neo-Shtokavian, we have people who believe themselves to be Croats and want outsiders to consider their native dialect (be it Chakavian, Kajkavian, Old Shtokavian or Torlakian) to also be "Croatian" no matter how divergent their native dialects are from the prescribed Neo-Shtokavian standard as tediously dictated by IHJJ. Vput (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

People, what's with you?

Why is this http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku.html, reference removed? I see censorship here. Are we having a case of ethnic segregation here? Topic is Croatian language, and someone has deleted the reference from the very regulator (the institution) that regulates that language! That's vandalism! And such vandalised version is still the actual version (04:11 CET, 9 Nov 2010).
Admins, how can you tolerate such behaviour on the pages of en.wiki?
Are you blind to the dissruptive behaviour and malignant NPOV writing?
All our protests are met with such disinterest, that it is downright insulting.
How can we be treated like this ? If this was done to someone else, this would have created such an uproar in the Wiki community. But, since this is about a small nation like the Croats, then behavioural pattern is "they in somehow deserve it: we can not uderstand their history or culture, they are insignificant ....".
This bias, discrimination and bullying should stop! Why is not one intervening and taking a stand Is this cause undeserving, or would this limit other user's in achieving some extra privilege or would this reduce the number of badges and banners of merit on their user pages? Is the mantra: I am not a Croat - I don't care the one which is taken about this problem, and anyone who is a Croat is immediatlely dismissed as a "crazed chauvinistic nazi nationalist".
Admins, open your eyes! Toleration of such disruptive behaviour will encourage such behaviour throughout en.wiki. And then you won't be able to stop it. Because such users will push you out. They never stop. They always want more. The more you give in to bullies, the bolder they become.
Always remember this [10] "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out." Kubura (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You know the tale about the boy who cried "wolf"?
So where was your "censored" reference? Here's the diff between Mir Haven's version of September 7 and the today's version. There's no "IHJJ" string anywhere in sight. Here's the version from January 3 2010, and there's no that reference either.
False accusations do not improve your credibility... to put it mildly. No such user (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, No such user, I haven't posted the diff, since it "fell out" while I was shortening my message in the text editor.
But I'm not making things up.
Here is the removing of that reference [11], 28 Oct 2010, by user Tbhotch (later Kwamikagami did that [12] etc.).
Who's lying now, No such user? Who's now saying false accusations?
No such user, your credibility is visible here [13]. When it doesn't suits you, you simply remove whole section. Unexplained blanking the section. If you disagreed with the form, you had to promptly replace it with another one: but you haven't. You simply deleted.
So, what is this [14], No such user? Am I making things up? Or it's easier to falsely accuse the opponents?
Live with the fact that Croatian is not a form of some frankensteinic "Serbo-Croatian". Croatian language is a unique South Slavic language. With its own unique history of development. Kubura (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the referenced text

I see censorship again. Whole cited sentence from the reference [15] [16], "Croats long objected to the artificial pairing of their language with Serbian during the Yugoslav era" <ref>[http://www.rferl.org/content/Serbian_Croatian_Bosnian_or_Montenegrin_Many_In_Balkans_Just_Call_It_Our_Language_/1497105.html Radio Free Europe - Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Or Montenegrin? Or Just 'Our Language'?] Živko Bjelanović: Similar, But Different, Feb 21, 2009, accessed Oct 8, 2010 </ref>had disappeared from the article. Please, read WP:CENSOR. We're trying to build an encyclopedia.
Živko Bjelanović is the linguist. Therefore, he's the source.
If someone has to add something to the referenced line, it would be nice if that is done by adding the text, not by deleting the text (or even adding something that's not written in the referenced text at all!) because certain user doesn't want that text to be seen at all.
Why is censored that? No need for that at all. Even in version from now (04:56 CET, 9 Nov 2010), there's no original cited sentence.
People, let's cooperate. Kubura (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"People, let's cooperate"--WP:POT. --Taivo (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm trying to calm things down, but your message looks inflammatory.
BTW, stop hounding me. Read WP:HOUND. Kubura (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing is that even wikipedia

in "serbo-croatian" states nothing about croatian language being a form of some "serbo-croatian". That explains nonsence that some editors are pursuing. Etnologue, widely referenced source (even here in wikipedia for other languages), together with International standardisation organisation (ISO), consider Croatian to be a language. It is obvious that editors pushing the first sentence are either victims of some misapprehension or victims of the communist and anti-national propaganda from the time of Yugoslavia. This, however, does not give anyone the right to neglect related sources. Arguing that "serbo-croatian" is an established term in english speaking countries (quite dubious and doubt that more than 1% of highly educated people in these countries ever heard of this term) is not something to call for when giving argumentation. If one would follow this rule, wikipedia would be full of such "established" stances, despite the fact that institutes and universities (the minority, or "nationalists" how some call them) states otherwise... International Standardisation Organisation, Etnologue and Institute of Croatian language and linguistics are the most competent sources for this subject and in case of controversy, their standpoint should prevail, giving the right to the different position to be mentioned as well. The way the article is written now is biased and not mentioning even a pinch of what the aforementioned institutes say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.177.166 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


Serbo-Croatian is a terrible misnomer, as the overlap between Croatian and Serbian is limited to štokavian dialect. The other two dialects are exclusively spoken by ethnic Croatians, so it's ludicrous to call them Serbian (like the term "Serbo-Croatian" implies). Someone here wrote that kajkavian dialect is the official language in Slovenia. It is most certainly not. The fact that standard Slovenian, like kajkavian, uses the interrogative pronoun 'kaj' doesn't make kajkavian dialect Slovenian. It's merely a transitional dialect between Croatian and Slovenian, much like Torlakian is a transitional one between Serbian and Bulgarian (and Macedonian) languages. So, dialectologically speaking, only štokavian Croatian qualifies to be included into 'Serbo-Croatian', but this term is largely abandoned and its use is generally frowned upon in Croatia. So what's the point in calling Croatian a "form of Serbo-Croatian" when its speakers don't recognize it as such? Languages are not created at whim of some university professors or by some institution. They are living organisms; created, animated and sustained by their speakers. 93.136.58.29 (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously these two anon IPs have not been reading the discussion to this point. On the one hand, they talk about "Croatian" to encompass all the Western South Slavic dialects that are spoken in the country of Croatia, but then only include the literary languages when discussing "Serbo-Croatian". Can't have it both ways, boys. In English linguistic usage, "Serbo-Croatian" refers to all the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects, not just the literary standard of Yugoslavia. As such, it includes Kajkavian, Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Torlakian (unless one counts Torlakian as a Bulgarian dialect). They also do not understand that from the 16th edition of Ethnologue on, it is no longer an independent source, but is a reflection of ISO 639-3 (both Ethnologue and ISO 639-3 are now administered by SIL). So citing these two sources as two sources is no longer valid. Indeed, the 15th edition was already integrating the ISO 639-3 standard and one must go all the way back to the 14th edition in order to truly treat the two sources as two independent sources [17]. In the 14th edition, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian are the two languages listed as forming West South Slavic. So get your story straight. All three standard literary languages, Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are Shtokavian. Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Torlakian are Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian are West South Slavic. That is the most common English linguistic usage. --Taivo (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolute comedy. You fell into your own trap. Your definition, as above, is based on contardictions. Honestly, never or rarely seen crap. Chakavian and especially Kajkavian are closer to Slovene than to any kind of Serbian, but somehow they are S-C!? In the same time Slovene is not S-C!? But Torlakian is S-C although it is closer to Bulgarian than to Croatian?! And Bulgarian is not S-C?! Chakavians and Torlaks who don't understand each other are both S-C?! And where Serbo-Slavic language disseappeared in this deep analysis? This is much better than Monthy Python Flying Circus. 78.0.133.255 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends on the viewpoint taken. Russian and Bulgarian languages use "što" but it is never said that these are štokavian languages. The same goes with "kaj" in Slovenian language - Slovenian is not kajkavian. When you say štokavian dialect - then it must be štokavian regarding what. For instance, in Italy, languages are named after the region where they are spoken. Sicilian langage is spoken in Sicily etc... One must take a clear criteria and use it all the time. Now we come to Serbian. Serbian can not be considered to be štokavian for two important reasons. FIRST: Serbian language does not have the word "što" so tha assumable dialect can not be called after a word from other language (in this case Croatian). Serbian uses the word šta - so the dialect should be called štakavian - and that is not the case. SECOND: Even if we take Serbian language to be štokavian - well it is not consistent to the rule that Serbian language does not have any other dialect that could be classified in the same way like štokavian. So, if Russian, Bulgarian or any other slavic language that uses the word "što" is not based on štokavian dialect, how is it so that a language that does not posess the word što and has no other dialects that fit this classification can be based on štokavian dialect?
It is clear that this false classification does not stem from linguistics but from a political pot that was spilled in 1990. Nor is Slovenian kajkavian, nor is Serbian and Russian štokavian. This classification of dialects holds only for Croatian language.93.138.92.125 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In other words- http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac427.nsf/AllWebDocs/Srpski_jezik_nije_stokavski. Be as it may, it's useless to waste time on this little clique (kwami, Štambuk, Taivo) & a few gullible fellow-travelers. What counts is that Croatian is 1) recognized internationally - http://hrv.nsk.hr/ . 2) recognized "politically" in EU admission talks - http://www.vecernji.ba/vijesti/hrvatski-postaje-24-sluzbeni-jezik-europske-unije-clanak-211952. So, this is the collapse of language policy the ICTY tried to impose. I guess the falsities English Wikipedia is spreading on Croatian language (re non-existent "Serbo-Croatian") will follow suit. Hastalavista ...Mir Harven (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I actually did read the entire discussion and I'm writing this because the amount of politics involved here nothing short of appalling. That said, the term 'Croatian language' refers to both 'Croatian standard language' and 'language spoken by Croats', regardless of whether it's kajkavian, čakavian or štokavian. So no, I'm not talking about "Croatian" which encompasses all the Western South Slavic dialects that are spoken in the country of Croatia, but about all native Croatian dialects regardless of their territorial distribution (f.e. Gradišćanski, spoken in Austria and in Hungary), as well as about Croatian standard. If this article is about Croatian standard, then rename it to "Standard Croatian language". Second of all, there's a chain of intelligibility from Slovenia to Bulgaria, and yet nobody is calling that chain a single language. So, when you say ""Serbo-Croatian" refers to all the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects", it begs the question why exactly is that the case? The answer to that is not linguistics but politics and you know that very well Taivo. For example, Croatian dialects are farther apart among themselves than some neighboring Slavic languages are (Ukrainian vs. Belarusian comes to mind), so why lumping an arbitrarily chosen group of dialects into the same language? It's a product of two failed regimes and I think it's kind of historical irony that Croats have to fight this battle one more time. In the end, English linguistic usage of the term 'Serbo-Croat' is clearly faulty and is due to be revised. 93.136.58.29 (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be very fluent in the linguistic literature, anon IP, if you think that I am talking about politics and not purely linguistics. Your statements about the dialects of non-Slovenian Western South Slavic show a fairly muddled view of the situation. You are wrong if you say that literary Serbian is not based on the Shtokavian dialect. All three of the literary standards of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia are directly based on Shtokavian. I suggest you actually examine the current linguistic models of Slavic relationships in the South Slavic group. The only politics involved are the politics of those who insist that Croatian is somehow not a part of this grouping, or that the dialects spoken by Croatians are somehow separate from the entire dialect continuum from Torlakian through Kajkavian, which is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What I said is that this entire matter is caused by politics, not linguistics. SC is a political name. Otherwise Slovene dialects would be included into "Serbo-Croatian", as they are mutually intelligible with Kajkavian. Of course Serbian is based on Štokavian, I never said anything about that. Neither have I said anything about Croatian not being a part of the local diasystem. My basic objection is about the name and status of "Serbo-Croatian". I tend to agree with Mir Harven. This artificial name will eventually die out, much like the regime which created it. So I'll accept his advice and stop losing time here. 93.136.58.29 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A little history: the English use of the name "Serbo-Croatian" dates to the 19th century, predating the formation of Yugoslavia. It was a creation of Gaj and other Croatian and Serbian nationalists, not of the Yugoslav state. It may very well die out, but until that day, it's common English usage and therefore the term we use on WP. — kwami (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
the English use of the name "Serbo-Croatian" dates to the 19th century - Nonsense! This is all full of apsurds. You are pushing this term, altough you don't know what does it mean or how it originated and how it was used! It doesn't matter who created it, but meaning matters. It was used by Illyrian movement propaganda (Croatian and Slovene writers)as artificial political term in the 19th century - idea was to form unique Slavic language which would unite and help different South Slavic peoples to resist to ocuppiers with non-Slavic official languages. No such language was ever formed and term remained what it was - just an idea. It was not even primal goal of that movement, just sporadical. But this way of use of term S-C, as you started here, is definitely related to 2 uses in 2 Yugoslavia political units in the 20th century. First Yugoslavia was transformed into dictatorship of Serbian monarch between WWI and WWII, who invented term "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" to erase Croats, Slovenes... In those times even Albert Einstein was shocked by the politics of the Serbian monarch against Croats and sent many open letters to a several European governments and newspapers. Second Yugoslavia from '45 to '90 was dictatorship of the communists (one party system) who created term S-C, linguistically undefined, which was supposed to be imagibnary language of those who self-identified themselves as the Yugoslavs (which was not ethnicity, but it was possible to use it as nationality). And English use of the name dates to period of the 2nd Yugoslavia, but as reflection of politics, not linguistics! Term S-C was never linguistically defined. In the 19th Croatian Illyricists used it a few times for some supposed future language - didn't happen. Yugoslav communists used it for the same reason, they hoped that different peoples within Yugoslavia will all become Yugoslavs in future and speak some S-C language - didn't happen. But what happen is that a few pro-Yugoslav zombies have no other space to live in the past except English wikipedia and recently "Serbo-Croatian wikipedia" (monsterous idea, I feel sorry for them). 78.0.133.255 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it is you, anon IP(s), who have turned (and continue to turn) this discussion into politics. This is a linguistic discussion and a linguistic discussion only. The linguistic facts, as shown in multiple reliable sources throughout this discussion is that the most common English term, in English language linguistic literature, for the non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects (Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, etc.) is "Serbo-Croatian". We do not use "Serbo-Croatian" here for just the literary standard of Yugoslavia, but for the range of dialects. It's clear that you have nothing, anon IP, to contribute to this discussion other than the same political rhetoric that we have heard before from other named editors. --Taivo (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You are funny. Your sorces like Kordić are political and used by you. Your S-C term is political not linguistic and used by you, linguistic sources are treated as nationalistic by you. But you conclude that your discussion is linguistic?! LOL And you say that Chakavian and Kajkavian are S-C but not Slovene, although Croatian Chakavian and Kajkavian are closer to Slovene language than to Croatian Štokavian, and although you base your S-C indoctrination on Štokavian. I'm citing myself (been written this an hour ago, a few rows above): Absolute comedy. You fell into your own trap. Your definition, as above, is based on contardictions. Honestly, never or rarely seen crap. Chakavian and especially Kajkavian are closer to Slovene than to any kind of Serbian, but somehow they are S-C!? In the same time Slovene is not S-C!? But Torlakian is S-C although it is closer to Bulgarian than to Croatian?! And Bulgarian is not S-C?! Chakavians and Torlaks who don't understand each other are both S-C?! And where Serbo-Slavic language disseappeared in this deep analysis? This is much better than Monthy Python Flying Circus. 78.0.133.255 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my last comment in this thread because you have offered nothing whatsoever to the discussion, but only nationalistic drivel. Kordic isn't one of my sources, since, as I have made quite clear, this being the English Wikipedia, then English language usage is primary. There are multiple English language linguistic sources (cited many times earlier in this discussion) that show the non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects labeled "Serbo-Croatian". Your political, nationalistic ranting doesn't change that fact, whether you like it or not. --Taivo (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, it seems you lost your nervs. You can't say that a selection of sources is more important than truth. There are hundreds of millions of sources writen in english that state a lie. Here it is not about sources in any language but about the truth. Truth is the first victim of your work.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It's more like he's lost his patience with puerile and amateurish ranting from a certain segment of the population. Exposing and debunking the nationalistic and politically-laced arguments (against shrill cries of "Yugounitarist!", "Chetnik!", "Bolshevik!", "Yugonostalgic!", "Titoist!") is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. After a while it gets a little boring because it isn't a terribly demanding mental exercise given all of the peer-reviewed analysis and evidence published so far that refutes nationalist logic. At the same time it can be instructive and even mildly entertaining to see nationalists squirm mentally when dealing with people who can stay on topic by focusing on linguistics (this is after all a language article, right?). The truth is this: Many Croats vocally and stubbornly refuse to countenance that what they have learned in school as "Croatian" in its modern form and been indoctrinated to believe is a sterling example of the imaginary mental state called "Croathood" has a politically uncomfortable but scientifically demonstrable and far-reaching link with standard Serbian. Professional linguists from outside the Balkans who are unburdened by peculiarly Balkan political, sociological or cultural whims come reliably and decisively to the conclusion that we are dealing with a pluricentric language called "Serbo-Croatian" or "Bosnian/Croatian/(Montenegrin)/Serbian" regardless of what natives' views are on some political entity called Yugoslavia. What we're left with is presentation of two broadly-defined sides with non-Balkan linguists staying true to their profession and training in linguistic analysis and Balkan ones often gladly subordinating their profession and professional training to the desires of non-specialists with fanciful national or political aspirations. Vput (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is nonsense, and this wiki-wannabe incarnation of small man Putin has put it all wrong. Well- all has been said. It remains, for umpteenth time, to give relevant linguists linx & goodbye:
Ranko Matasović: Serbo-Croatian has never existed, http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac383.nsf/AllWebDocs/Srpsko_hrvatski_nikada_nije_ostvaren__jer_nije_postojao
Radoslav Katičić: Serbian language is not štokavian, http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac427.nsf/AllWebDocs/Srpski_jezik_nije_stokavski
As far as orchestrated propaganda offensive about worthless pamphlet authored by Snježana Kordić goes-
Mario Grčević: War on Croatian language and Orthography, http://hakave.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7171:dr-sc-mario-grevi-rat-za-hrvatski-jezik-i-pravopis-i-dio&catid=114:kultura&Itemid=45
Nataša Bašić: Strategy and strategists in showdown with Croatian language and linguistics, http://hakave.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7165:strategija-i-stratezi-u-obraunu-s-hrvatskim-jezikom-i-jezikoslovljem&catid=114:kultura&Itemid=45 Mir Harven (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, not a neutral linguist in the bunch--all of them nationalists driven by a nationalistic ideology. Oh, yes, there's a problem--any linguist who disagrees with the nationalist agenda is a Titoist, etc., no matter what nationality that linguist is. The problem is that linguists from Croatia start their work with a foregone conclusion and then amass evidence to support that conclusion. Any evidence that doesn't support the conclusion is discarded or the linguist pointing it out is "discarded". It's like the Mormon church hiring an archeologist to prove the Book of Mormon--if the archeologist finds data that prove otherwise, then either the data are ignored or the archeologist loses his/her job. --Taivo (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite illuminating to see how these linguists like to militarize a (socio)linguistic topic by throwing in the terms "propaganda offensive", "war" or "strategy" or reply with blanket denials (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian does not exist", "Serbian is not Shtokavian (unlike Croatian which is)" using sleights of hand of faulty logic rather than corpus data, attested texts or unadulterated results from independent fieldwork. I rest my case as those links from Mir Harven show how nominally Croatian linguists overstep their academic boundaries and fancy themselves to be political mouthpieces/cultural missionaries, editorial writers or figurative soldiers in contrast to most of their colleagues outside the Balkans who stay true to their profession and resist becoming political tools. If these Croatian linguists are indeed so gung-ho and are closet soldiers or closet generals, they could certainly find a better fit for their martial dreams and allegories by joining the Croatian army. On another note it's also indicative of the mentality of the Croatian nationalists when they resort either to hurling Yugoslavian-era epithets at outsiders who have no emotional baggage from living in the Balkans or imagining that others who contradict them are representatives of traditional bogeymen (i.e. Serbs or others who are ideological/traditional enemies). The similarity of "Vput" to the Russian and presumably pro-Serbian "V. Putin" is coincidental and if Mir Harven were to have even a shred of knowledge in Slavonic languages other than the oh-so-precious "Croatian", Mir Harven would realize that Vput has meaning unrelated to "V. Putin"). Calling people who legitimately question the Croatian nationalist take as "Serbian agents", "Titoists" only illustrates how far the nationalists extend their idealized nationalist/political conceptions to questions of language classification or linguistic analysis. Vput (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious the administrators (and some other members) here are not only biased but also outright inimical towards Croats, with virtually every comment about the inconsistencies in the term 'Serbo-Croat' being called 'nationalist' and whatnot. What's wrong with you people? Going by your (inherently faulty) logic, one has to be a non-Croat in order to have a neutral opinion about Croatian language? No wonder hardly anyone takes wiki seriously. 78.0.254.181 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This article smacks heavily on politics, with Croatian language rendered to just a part of some imaginary 'Serbo-Croatian'. As if we all speak just one language and the divide is caused by politics and nationalism. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!161.53.243.70 (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that this article does not bow down to political motives. Croatian (language) is defined politically (or ethno-politically) and is, as stated, a standard form of what in English is called Serbo-Croatian: the mutually intelligible varieties that include Croatian and Serbian. Any divide between Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian (and Montenegrin) is political, small as the differences are. --JorisvS (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course it does bow to political motives, especially to those aiming to erase or marginalize the differences between these languages. It is beyond any doubt that standard Croatian and Serbian languages are both based on a single dialect, though only dialectologically, not sociolinguistically, but it is plainly insane to include the other two Croatian macro dialects, Chakavian & Kajkavian, in the mix, as they are closer to each other than they are to Štokavian, and much less mutually intelligible with Serbian language. Also, you speak here as if a random Croatian speaker is politically driven (or maybe he is even an eeeevil nationalist!) to recognize his Serbian neighbors speak a similar, yet different language! The bigotry here is simply deplorable.161.53.243.70 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So are Chakavian and Kajkavian a different language to Standard Croatian? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Linguistically speaking, Chakavian and Kajkavian both exhibit enough of a difference compared to Standard Croatian to be considered separate languages. Including them inside the Serbo-Croatian spectrum of dialects is also politically driven in the sense that they're included only because Croatian linguists consider them dialects (on a more ethnical/national level than a linguistic one) of Croatian. It can be argued that putting Kajkavian/Chakavian along with other Serbo-Croatian dialects is the same as labeling Croatian Standard language a separate language from Serbian only because it's spoken by Croats.Tty29a (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And that's why I personally don't. Unless we have reliable sources that say these should really be considered separate languages, there is not much we can do about it, though. But it really doesn't matter in the debate over the Croatian vs. Serbian standards, as these are both Štokavian and very much mutually intelligible. --JorisvS (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A random Croatian believing s/he speaks a "Croatian language" which is separate from the language people speak in Serbia, Bosnia, or Montenegro may well not be politically motivated to believe this. S/he has, however, picked up politically motivated propaganda/lies(/or whatever you want to call it) from people who are, directly or indirectly. --JorisvS (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying the Croatian people's name for their language is the product of a lie? And you don't see how that could possibly be perceived as a problem? This style of debate is becoming increasingly annoying. By now it's on par with the excessively nationalist style on my scale of annoyance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to get you to read beyond the words (unsuccessfully), it seems you got stuck at the word "lie". I tried to get you to read more or less the following in it: People spread ideas, all people do. These may or may not reflect reality. In our case here, the concept of a Croatian language (using the English definition of the word) structurally separate from a Serbian language was happily spread by people politically motivated to split Croatia fromand Serbia, but it does not reflect reality (structurally the differences are quite minor). People unaware of the political motivations behind such an idea will often come to believe it true and will then probably spread the idea further, without they themselves being motivated politically. Whether you want to call the concept then propaganda (since it is happily spread by those having a political agenda), lies (since the idea does not reflect reality and was intentionally spread by some), or something else, I really don't care. --JorisvS (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That's actually a fairly arbitrary point. I can't believe the bias against sociolinguistics has to be so overwhelming that you have to resort to this kind of endless doubt at the motives of all the readers who subscribe to a different interpretation...
And the pitfall of a double standard that we've fallen into is annoying, too. If you're tired of the obvious Dano-Norwegian example, let's try with a car analogy - the lead sections of Toyota Aygo and Peugeot 107 are phrased in a more neutral manner (or rather, a less inflammatory manner) than the lead section of this article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no bias against sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics just has nothing to say about language's nature structurally or what should be considered separate languages (this is not to say that this doesn't happen sometimes, erroneously), which is where the car analogy breaks down. --JorisvS (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Err, so how do I respond to this without asking you first to delete the article on dialectology :) Objective structural properties of language systems are not the single immutable criterion upon which encyclopedia articles about them must be composed. Just like the article on homo sapiens does not have to state in the first sentence how the human genome matches chimpanzee genome >98% - it's just not the most useful thing to say. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
To split Croatia from Serbia? Croats *believe* they speak Croatian because of the (probably nationalist) propaganda?? What on earth are you talking about? I suggest you learn some basic history of this part of the world. Also, I fully subscribe to one of my compatriots here who said you people should be ashamed of yourselves. You very well should. The term 'Croatian language' is ancient compared to this modern notion of 'Serbo-Croatian'- e.g. "Iz veće tuđijeh jezika u hrvacki izložene" (early 17th century, Štokavian), "u versih harvacki složena" (16th century, Čakavian) etc.93.136.41.26 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Serbs don't have historical Štokavian literature. Vuk Karadžić was creator of Serbian standard in the 19th century, but at the end of the 18th century he had said that Štokavian had been Croatian language! S-C is probably best to use for Serbian standard or categorization. Not for Croatian.
S-C propagandists constantly use one and the same fake statement: "Croatian and Serbian are completely mutually inteligible". 78.3.42.138 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
A few simple sentences can show how "completely mutually inteligible" Croatian and Serbian standards are, without too much philosophy:
English: If you want to get informed read this piece of paper.
Croatian: Ako se želiš informirati čitaj ovaj komadić papira.
Serbian: Ako želiš (da se informišeš) čitaj ovo (parče) (hartije).


English: Add carrot, popper and mushrooms to turkey soup, mix with a spoon and cook 1 hour.
Croatian: Dodaj mrkvu, papar i gljive u juhu od purice, zamiješaj žlicom i kuhaj 1 sat.
Serbian: Dodaj (šargarepu), (biber) i (pečurke) u (čorbu) od (ćurke), (smešaj) (kašikom) i (kuvaj) 1 (čas).


English: Later we will eat apricots.
Croatian: Poslije ćemo jesti marelice.
Serbian: (Posle) ćemo (da jedemo) (kajsije).
In bold brackets - Serbian words or forms non-existant in Croatian standard. These differences come from Kajkavian and Čakavian included in Croatian standard and Serbo-Slavic and Torlakian included in Serbian standard. These are just 3 examples. 78.3.42.138 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Taivo erased previous examples with comment "Cite a reliable source. Original research is not acceptable". We are not allowed to use reliable sources. You call it nationalist sources. On the other side you use political sources and call it reliable. 78.3.120.112 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not waste space here with original research that is nothing more than your personal assertion and absolutely worthless for the purposes of this discussion. Use a reliable source. And since this is the English Wikipedia, your source should be in English as well. This is not a topic that is ignored in the English language literature on Slavic languages. --Taivo (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not erase other people's comments. This is not the article, this is talk page. You don't own this talk page. I 've checked your comments here and in the archives, you constantly state something in this discussion, but you have never cited any source. So you are the last person to teach the others what to do! You removed my comment twice yesterday. [18] [19] Why? Are you afraid of something? Yes, of course. It shows how shameless your lies are. Remove it to hide it, ha? 78.3.120.112 (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic posts are not subject to keeping, and we're all pretty much tired answering every IP that lands on this talk page from various internet forums, repeating the same rejected or off-topic arguments. So, let me (in vain, I know...) repeat from the header of this very page:
No such user (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not off topic! Croats are not allowed to edit the article about their own culture in English wikipedia. Topic is Croatian language but Croatian linguists, Croatian academy, Croatian dictionaries and Croatian grammar books are under censorship here. This is precedence in all wikipedia world! The only possibility for Croats is to show the truth! A gang of political revisionists attacked this article and what do you expect? Do you really think that people in Croatia will leave it just like that? Now you reap what you sow. 78.3.120.112 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again, read WP:OR. Your personal assertions aren't valid here, only reliable sources. Stop wasting our time and space with irrelevant information. You're clearly not a linguist, so you don't appear to be able to evaluate linguistic information. Otherwise you would have known that your "demonstration" was not linguistically valid in dealing with the issue of mutual intelligibility. Multiple references have been provided here before demonstrating conclusively that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are mutually intelligible. There's no linguistic debate on the matter within reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I heard recent proposal by some Serbian scholars that there is a medium-term plan to rename "Serbo-Croatian" into Great-Serbian.93.142.62.44 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what Serbian scholars want to do. All that matters here is common English usage and Serbo-Croatian is firmly entrenched. --Taivo (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
So you admit that S-C doesn't exist? LOL this is comedy. A bunch of frustrated are pushing non-existing language based on past tense propaganda of past tense political option! This reminds me of another communist joke: Northern Korean communist government convinced their people that they are producing BMW cars. It seems that English wikipedia became a refugium for the followers of dead political options, poor bunch of them have no other place to spread their pamphlets. Here, in a group they feel strong. 78.0.134.118 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is stupid. You might want to read the SC article so you know what you're talking about and don't make a fool of yourself. — kwami (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And you think that you know what you're talking about? You don't have to make fool of yourself because others have already made a fool of you and other poorly informed wiki editors! SC pamphlet was spread out of former Yugoslavia by former Yugoslav institutions. It is fake term since that term - SC - was just synonym for Serbian language. People who were thaught about SC or were thaught to speak SC out of Yugoslavia were thaught to speak Serbian language! Not Croatian! SC by your interpretation leans on former Yu pamphlets - non realised communist dreams. You are all so desperately funny and lost in your own impossible and unreal interpretations - absolute comedy. 78.0.134.118 (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You are clearly living in a cloud, anon IP. Serbo-Croatian is the term used in English for the range of mutually-intelligible non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects. There are no politics involved except on your part. It is a linguistic determination, so you're just making a fool of yourself with your political rantings. --Taivo (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Linguistic? ROTFL Serbo-Croatian is the term used in English for the range of mutually-intelligible non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects - Many Croats have already asked you, none of you was able to answer:
1. Kajkavian Croatian is almost identical to Slovene - you count it for SC; Čakavian Croatian is more close to Kajkavian than to Štokavian - you count it for SC. What is "linguistic" in this degeneric categorization of yours???
2. How did SC term sudenly become linguistic term after it was always exclusively political term from its origin to its practical use in former Yugoslavia?
Can anyone answer these simple questions directly without indoctrines that we were getting in answer by now? (How many of you know that even within former Yugoslavia, only "Croatian" was officially used by Croatian institutions, like Croatian media - TV Zagreb, SC was in B&H, Serbia and Montenegro) 83.131.71.136 (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again, your politics are irrelevant. The use of "Serbo-Croatian" in English for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects goes back into the 19th century, but it doesn't really matter when it began. It is firmly entrenched now and now is all that matters in the English Wikipedia. You and your fellows have been asked many times to prove the use of any other term to cover this language complex and you have failed to do so. It's not "Croatian", it's not "Serbian", it's not "Bosnian". These labels only serve to mark part of the range of dialects of the language that is covered by "Serbo-Croatian". You don't have a term, but continually claim that there is no unity here for the simple reason that you don't want there to be any unity in this range of dialects. I'm not going to respond to your political, non-linguistic, POV-pushing tirades anymore since you have nothing to offer in this discussion. --Taivo (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If you have problem with languages in Bosnia&Herzegovina and if you think that people speak something between Croatian and Serbian there, then it reasonable to use SC only there! Croatian culture and language are much older than those admixtures. Croatian language can not be a hostage of cultural heterogeneity in another state. It is not problem of the Croats and Croatian culture! 83.131.71.136 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Indoctrines, indoctrines and only indoctrines! You say "linguistic" I'm asking you again:

If SC is used for the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects -

1. How can Kajkavian be SC since it is almost identical to Slovene? It means that Slovene is SC too...
2. How can Čakavian be SC since it is much more close to Kajkavian than to Štokavian, which means that it also very close to Slovene?
3. How can Croatian language be SC since it is formed also by exclusively Croatian non-Štokavian gradients Kajkavian and Čakavian?
4. How can Torlak be SC since it is more close to Bulgarian and Macedonian than to any Štokavian dialect? It means that Bulgarian and Macedonian are SC too...

Can anyone provide linguistic arguments for this degenerated categorization? 83.131.71.136 (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Kajkavian is almost identical to Slovene? That's absurd. While Kajkavian certainly is closer to Slovene than to Standard Croatian, and *is* in a dialect continuum with Slovene (which can be confirmed by assessing isoglosses in the border areas as well as the ever higher mutual intelligibility the closer you are to the border) that doesn't mean it's *identical*. If it were identical, then the Croat linguists would be of the same opinion, too, don't you agree? But they're not, they consider it a "dialect" of "Croatian" (which I personally disagree with).
As for Croatian being "formed exclusively" from "non-Štokavian" gradients (?), what is that even supposed to mean? The effect that Čakavian and Kajkavian had on Standard Croatian are so miniscule that they're barely in the domain of being worth mentioning, yet you claim that Standard Croatian is based on them? If that were true, wouldn't Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian be mutually unintelligible seeing as Slovene and Croatian are mutually unintelligible? (except for on a basic level).
Kajkavian and Čakavian linguistically shouldn't be put into SC, however, none of your arguments make sense. The reasons why they shouldn't be included in SC are morphological, syntactical and lexical hence why they're not mutually intelligible with Standard Croatian or Standard Serbian, and not because they're "Croatian". Croat linguists too often use a definition that relates to ethnicity rather than language. Sure, on an ethnical level, Kajkavian and Čakavian are Croatian as they are spoken by Croats, but do you see what trouble that usage causes? Kajkavian and Čakavian aren't researched well enough in non-Yugoslav areas for other linguists to make up their own mind as to them being separate languages, hence why most English language sources will simply put them in the basket with SC, and there's no one to blame for that but our own linguists. Tty29a (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
OK maybe I exarragated when I said that Kajkavian is almost identical to Slovene. Identical is wrong word here.
I didn't say Croatian being "formed exclusively" from "non-Štokavian" gradients! My words were Croatian language is formed also by exclusively Croatian non-Štokavian gradients, Kajkavian and Čakavian!
You say: The effect that Čakavian and Kajkavian had on Standard Croatian are so miniscule that they're barely in the domain of being worth mentioning. When I read this I can clearly see that you don't know what are Kajkavian and Čakavian like. You also don't know history of Croatian dialects. Things are not simple. 3 Croatian dialects overlap - that's why Croatian linguists consider it as 3 dialects of the same language. Northern Čakavians are Ekavians and they share many issogloses with Kajkavians, even with Slovenes in northern Istria. Southern Čakavians are Ikavians and they share many issogloses with Croatian Štokavians. Croatian Štokavians (Ikavian in B&H, southern Dalmatia, Slavonia and central Croatia, Ijekavian in southern Dalmatia, Slavonia, Herzegovina and central Croatia) all developed from Ikavian Šćakavians (historical dialect). That's why they are significiantly different to Montenegrin Ijekavians whose language structure was used by Serbs for their standard, since Serbs were not speakers of Štokavian historically. Serbo-Slavic language was certainly not Štokavian! Original Šćakavian vocabulary was different to Montenegrin Štokavian and very different to Serbo-Slavic! Check historical writings and you will see. Croatian Ikavian Šćakavians developed into Croatian Ijekavian Štokavians and Croatian Ikavian Štokavians. Ikavian Štokavians influenced Kajkavians in Slavonia and pushed them more to the west. That is how Croatian dialects are chained in a sort of ring; a form of ring is exactly how Croatian dialects are overlapping. That is what Croatian linguists are saying and what is censored here! People who started this problematic categorization are coming from Serbia and B&H and they have no basic idea what are Čakavian and Kajkavian like! Also Croats in B&H don't speak clear Croatian so these fellows think that all Croats speak that way. I've noticed it in their comments.
I can speak clearly about these things because I'm half Kajkavian and half Čakavian by ancestry and I'm first generation to speak Štokavian, looking from both sides of my ancestors. That's how I can speak all 3 Croatian dialects and I know what I'm talking about. You have no idea how much Kajkavian and Čakavian words are included in modern Croatian standard. A lot!
You say Kajkavian and Čakavian aren't researched well enough in non-Yugoslav areas for other linguists to make up their own mind as to them being separate languages, hence why most English language sources will simply put them in the basket with SC - but this is where problem comes from - it's not up to them who don't know what to do with it! It's up to those who researched it and who know! Croatian linguists like Brozović, Babić, etc. But we are not allowed to use them here. This article is still under censorship and quality sources are forbiden to use. This is case for a number of wikipedian administrators because this ill-categorization has already 2 years long history of systematical gradual infiltration into wikipedia articles. One person started it a few followed him and now this is a mess!!! This article should be unblocked and Croats should be free to edit it. It is article about Croatian language, a part of Croatian culture! Not someone else's! 83.131.71.136 (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not happy to say this, but I must do it: psychiatrist should also come here and check some heads. 83.131.71.136 (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think you *might've* exaggerated, then I beg you to elaborate as to what you're trying to achieve here. You claim that people in here are biased yet you're trying to make statements from authority by exaggerating on terms that are hard-coded into linguistics? Whoah. Slovene and Kajkavian aren't identical, EoD. You defending yourself by saying that it was just an exaggeration is an outright lie. You're either being purposely deceitful towards those who aren't speakers of Kajkavian or have no clue what you're talking about. It could be both, though.
As for Kajkavian and Čakavian sharing isoglosses, well, that's to be expected seeing as they evolved from speeches which have been common to speakers of both. Absolutely no surprises there. What is a surprise is that you're trying to imply that the current Standard Croatian is a descendant of a dialectal variation which has been mostly deprecated since the migrations of south-eastern-most Štokavian speakers. This is lunacy. Furthermore, you say that there's a "significant" difference between Montenegrin and Croatian when that is clearly not the case. The differences in most segments are only slight, with the biggest ones belonging to vocabulary, but that doesn't prevent an almost perfect mutual intelligibility of Montenegrin and Standard Croatian.
Ring? What kind of a linguistic term is this? Do you have any formal education in linguistics? You surely do not come off as someone who does. "Croatian" "dialects" (emphasis on both terms being in separate quotes) are not a special case for linguistics, they in no way form a unique dialectal scenario. Similar scenarios occur elsewhere. Your accusations of people who disagree with you being "from Serbia and B&H" is rather infantile and can be easily categorically disproved by pointing out the case of Hindi-Urdu where Wikipedia takes an identical stance.
Also, your attempt to set your self as some sort of authority on the whole matter utterly failed as someone who is a speaker of Kajkavian would certainly be aware of the fact that it's not identical to Slovene. Furthermore, speaking a dialect pertains in no way to being able to classify it objectively withing linguistics. With your current attitude, being able to speak Kajkavian comes off as a waste because you're not doing it any good by classifying Kajkavian on an *ethnical level* within a science that tries to separate itself from such influences, nor by making false claims of Standard Croatian being based on Kajkavian and Čakavian. But hey, wait, you've already refuted yourself on that one (remember how first you said it's based on Kajkavian/Čakavian then later on you said it's on Ikavian Šćakavian?). You should try to keep track of your lies in some way or the other as you're no good at remembering them. Tty29a (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Long story short, all three contemporary Croatian dialects evolved from the proto-Slavic language that the ancestors of modern-day Croats spoke and, as such, they form a dialect continuum, with the most eastern dialect being a bridge to Serbian language, so to say. What I don't understand is why is it still common to use the term 'Serbo-Croat' in English language, when it recklessly lumps together three distinct Croatian dialects along with Serbian language and neglects their historical development. I believe most Croats act somewhat protective when their language is concerned, even if they aren't as knowledgeable on this subject as someone would expect, as is the case with this wikipedia article, due to a long history of misuse of the term 'Serbo-Croat' on the expense of Croatian language. Farewell. 93.136.30.219 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's amazing how little linguistics you understand, anon IP. "Serbo-Croatian" is used as a term for all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. As such it includes Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian, and Torlakian as equal dialects. Shtokavian is the source for standard Serbian, standard Croatian, and standard Bosnian. Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Shtokavian do not form a "Croatian" group within Serbo-Croatian. Serbian is a part of Shtokavian as is Bosnian and standard Croatian. Your gross misrepresentation of the relationships between these West South Slavic dialects is not based on reliable linguistic sources, but upon nationalistic fervor and ethnic paranoia. --Taivo (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I made myself clear that I didn't mean all Croatian dialects are derived from some imaginary 'proto-Croatian', since I did mention that they derive from proto-Slavic. To simplify it a bit for you, the term 'Croatian dialects' is used to describe those dialects native to ethnic Croatians, as different as they may be. They simply don't need to have the same structure, morphology, syntax and phonology in order to be called 'Croatian' by their speakers. I don't think that's hard to understand. On the other hand, Croats and Serbs share one dialect which is used as the basis for their standard languages, so the structures of standard Croatian and Serbian are largely the same. My initial remark, to which you responded in a rather brazen manner, was that the English use of "Serbo-Croatian" is faulty since it also includes two distinct, exclusively Croatian dialects. 93.136.59.242 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
So, what do you propose to call the language which includes the dialect shared by Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian? — kwami (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
One of our linguists proposed the name "Central South Slavic diasystem" (or just Central South Slavic, CSS) instead of "Serbo-Croatian", though other linguists disputed this term because, like "Serbo-Croatian", it also included Čakavian and Kajkavian. I think that name is good, but only if it's limited to standard as well as non-standard Štokavian idioms. Also, it should by no means act as a replacement term for Croatian or for Serbian. 93.136.59.242 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
But we don't get to invent our own terms. In English, "Serbo-Croatian" means Serbian + Croatian. Since Cha & Kaj are Croatian, they're also SC. That's one of the things I verified when I got involved in this debate. When people mean just Shto, they generally say "Shtokavian", though that term isn't common in English. I agree SC shouldn't be used as a replacement for S or C, but I don't think anyone has done that here. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you asked me for my opinion. I understand your point, but I still think SC is heavily burdened by its inherently political history. That is of no great consequence now, because should an English speaker mention something about Croatian being SC, he would likely be corrected by his Croatian counterpart that Croatian is simply Croatian. That said, I think the introductory sentence of this article is misleading as it creates the impression that Croats, Serbs, and other ethnic groups speaking any subdialect of the local diasystem consider they speak one and the same language, which is untrue [20]. It should be rephrased to something like: Croatian (hrvatski) is a South Slavic language spoken by Croats. It is a part of the South Slavic dialect continuum and it forms a diasystem with Serbian language via Štokavian dialect. The most common English designation of the said diasystem is 'Serbo-Croatian', although the term is controversial for native speakers. Just my two cents. 78.0.209.140 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The first sentence isn't about sociolinguistic facts, but about linguistic reality. The reality is that Croatian, Serbian, etc. are parts of a single, mutually intelligible language that is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. They are called "separate languages" only because the speakers refuse to recognize their similarities and emphasize the few differences between them. There is already a paragraph about the sociolinguistic issues where the interested reader can find out about the nationalism and ethnic paranoia tied up in the issue. The first sentence is for linguistic facts only. --Taivo (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is objective in a mostly superficial sense, one that yet again bases itself on ethnicity and politics. Kajkavian and Čakavian are not mutually intelligible yet are lumped together with Croatian, due to purely ethnic reasons. Now, I'm not advocating the removal of SC, nor claiming that Standard Croatian is a separate language, because it is not. The article however doesn't deal solely with Standard Croatian which makes the complaint completely valid as Kajkavian and Čakavian are not a form of Serbo-Croatian, despite belonging to the ethnically defined SC dialect continuum. The situation could be remedied by using the wording Standard Croatian is a form of SC in the first sentence. If that isn't done, then it's not entirely consistent with the SC dialect infobox templates as those put Kajkavian and Čakavian under label Croatian.Tty29a (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If that were true, you'd have a good point. However, Cha and Kaj are Serbo-Croatian. (Didn't I just note that three paragraphs ago?) That was one of the things I verified when this debate started. Somewhere beneath the reams of garbage this has attracted, we cited sources demonstrating that. And since Croatian is Serbo-Croatian, if Cha and Kaj are not SC, then they are not Croatian either, something which some of our Croatian editors might freak out about even more than they do SC. There aren't two Croatian languages, one without Cha and Kaj that's part of SC, and the other with that's not. (Unless you accept that Shtokavian is not Croatian, in which case the majority of Croats do not speak Croatian--another consequence I don't think we can support.) — kwami (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing Kaj/Cha as dialects of Serbo-Croatian, be it the SC language or the SC dialect continuum. Maybe I was looking too much into it, but I interpreted Croatian is a form of Serbo-Croatian as implying some sort of unity within the arbitrarily and ethnically defined term Croatian language, as opposed to say - Croatian refers to forms of the Serbo-Croatian language used (or spoken) by Croats (with those **forms** further explained as being Kaj/Cha/Shto, all part of SC, but not being linguistically closer to each other than to the rest of the SC dialect continuum). Meh, I'm not sure if it makes sense. Tty29a (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. That makes sense. We'd had "SC as spoken by Croats", but there were other objections to that. You're of course correct: there is no taxonomic clade that includes all of Croatian but does not include Serbian. I'll try out your wording. — kwami (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"The first sentence is for linguistic facts only", but based on politics and political term... you have survived nice brain washing clap clap. Giving a special name to only one case of dialectal continuums among South Slavic languages is surely not linguistics. It is "murder with forethought". SC term is embarassing and discriminative towards the other South Slavs. 83.131.84.155 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "other South Slavs"? You mean the Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Slovenians? Those are the other South Slavs and I seriously doubt that "Serbo-Croatian" is embarassing and discriminatory to any of them. The linguistic facts are quite clear and the sociolinguistic issues are not relevant to the first paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You precisely know who I am thinking of. That's why you dropped precisely them: Montenegrins, Bosniaks. Please can you stop act like propaganda spot, repeating always the same paradigm like a broken record. Discussion is not about what indoctrines are leading your life and how your brain is grooved like. You don't have to remind everyone about your POV in every message. 83.131.84.155 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we don't understand you because we're being obtuse, not because you're unintelligible.
You have a point, now that you explain what you mean. This is why acronyms like BCMS have been coined. They are awkward and not established English usage to the extent that SC is, though if you wanted to rename the SC article BCMS or SCBM or BCS or SCB or one of the other iterations of this pattern, you could make a good argument for it.
However, ridiculous phrases like "murder with forethought" demonstrate that you are not a rational mind that we need to consider seriously. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a new one. Sorry, anon, arguments require evidence. — kwami (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here, arguments are not needed, you speak about the South Slavs but you can't count them? 83.131.84.155 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? — kwami (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It's been already shown to you in this talk page that there is no established English usage of SC. There is no unique postion in all English sources. You try to establish your POV and it wouldn't be important if this was not an encyclopedia. But it is. It seems that you constantly forget that you should be encyclopedist and not original theoretician. History of Croatian language explains the best what is Croatian standard based on. It didn't develop from any kind of Serbo-Croatian speaking continuum since such one never existed. 83.131.84.155 (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the SC article so you know what you're talking about. You appear to have no idea. — kwami (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've read it but that article completely misses the point - it should be about usage of political term and not about languages. 83.131.84.155 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? We're talking about languages! — kwami (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that's what I mean. Languages. The real question are: why do you keep on insisting on that term in categorization? Why do you violently push that term into any related article? Why do you produce controversial definitions? You can not use SC term and escape controversy - the whole history of that term is controversial. What is wrong with Croatian language being what it is - South Slavic language? Finally: how come that you, who should be objective, neutral an unbiased, have decided to establish and protect terminology served and used by a specific chauvinistic, nationalistic group and ideology? 83.131.84.155 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You're directing your rage at the wrong people. The evolution of Serbo-Croatian (most notably the Shtokavian dialect) might have historically been politically motivated (for the sake of unity and to increase the ability of communication among ex-Yugoslavian people who used different dialects) but that doesn't take away from its diachronic importance in the evolution towards Shtokavian's current stage, where it is in different variants used as a standard language of most ex-Yugoslavian countries. The problem is in contemporary usage of political views to determine the association of one language to another. Those cannot be used as they offer inconsistent accounts on the relation between all those standards. Future relation between them might change, no, scratch that, it will change, but until it does so, it's only logical to use a term that encompasses all those standards. As for your previous remark about the name being unfair towards other people using it, why? Is the term English unfair to native English speakers who aren't English? Also, if there is an ideological agenda on the part of people who disagree with you, can you elaborate as to why they have the same stance on the Hindi-Urdu matter? Tty29a (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not Hindi-Urdu matter. Would you use Englo-Irish just because Irishmen started to speak English? I think you guys are hypnothised by meaning - Štokavian. There are some significant lexical and stylish differences within all considered Štokavian today. Anyway, instead of using "Štokavian" you decided to use "SC". Why? Also Croatian standard was not just political decision - it was natural choice because Croatian literal language became Štokavian and Štokavianized naturally by time, already in 17th and 18th century, that's why it had the same name in those times - Croatian, and it has the same name today - Croatian, it has nothing to do with "by whom it is spoken today". Your argumentation is based on "change of thesis". 83.131.84.155 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
What could possibly be so difficult to understand? When we mean Croatian, we say "Croatian". When we mean Shtokavian, we say "Shtakavian". When we mean Serbo-Croatian, we say "Serbo-Croatian". You want us to lie by saying one thing when we mean something else. You don't like the name SC--fine. The solution is to suggest an alternative name, which we could then discuss. Until you do that, this is a meaningless debate. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Subscript text

lead wording

I tried the wording suggested by Tty29a, which was an improvement. Vedran Korotaj made further improvements, apart from deleting some sources, which I restored. With the new wording, "a South Slavic language" doesn't fit easily in the text, so I removed it. It's obvious in any case since SC is a South Slavic language; having it there is like adding "an Indo-European language". — kwami (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just saw a map in this article where Chakavian and Kajkavian are called Serbo-Croatian. What's with that? One of the editors here explained that's the most common English use for the mutually intellibible dialects that Serbs and Croats supposedly speak. Here's a newsflash: all of them aren't mutually intelligible! All varieties of Shtokavian are intellibile among themselves, regardless of the ethnic affiliation of their speakers, but that doesn't hold true for Kajkavian and Chakavian. Those two dialects are more archaic than dialects of Shtokavian are, which is especially the case with Chakavian (it has some resemblance to Russian, especially in accentuation), so they exhibit a number of common features and yet they are distinct enough to be viewed as separate languages. The level of differentiation between Croatian (an ethnic term) dialects is significantly higher than the one usually encountered between other dialects of the Slavic-speaking world, with major isoglosses of Cro dialects being extremely old. This is not to say Shtokavian Croatian should rightfully be called "Serbo-Croatian" along with Serbian because such term is utterly reductionist, as languages aren't determined solely by their structural properties, not to mention its apparent political nature. Also, I was stunned when one of the editors here in this talk page wrote something about "Serbo-Croatian" being the same language, only its speakers refuse to acknowledge that because they're nationalistic and paranoid. Insulting entire nations in a self-righteous manner can hardly be called unbiased or neutral. I hope the quality of this article will improve in the future. 161.53.243.70 (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's Croatians who, since the 1850s, have maintained that Shto, Kaj, and Cha are a single language despite their general lack of mutual intelligibility. That's fine, as it's a borderline case, but since Serbian, being Shtokavian, is also part of that language, we can't very well just call it "Croatian", unless Serbs are willing to admit that they speak a Croatian dialect and English sources follow suite. — kwami (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Silly misreading of what the experts have been saying, IP-anonymous. They stated that all the Serbian and Croatian dialects fall under a supra-term "Serbo-Croation" - which dates back to the 1860's. Even I, a non-linguist, can see what this is objectively about, and nobody "insulted" either nationality - only calling on the trolls to stop turning this into a political instead of a scientific debate.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
I believe the issue here is not about objective properties of the languages in question, but almost exclusively about politics. Whether you people like it or not, 'Serbo-Croatian' is a political name, which is observed in it including chakavian and kajkavian. So, as long as you use a such a name, you're bound to have never ending discussions about politics here, and such discussions are rarely productive. 93.136.83.114 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

@user Kwami Yes, all Croatian dialects (though it's better to say languages) are considered equally Croatian in a sense that they are part of Croatian culture and our historical heritage. I also don't see why should Serbian be called Croatian, or vice versa. Languages are inherently tied to cultures, so different subdialects of shtokavian are called either Croatian or Serbian due to cultural factors, i.e. the differences between them are mostly lexical and belong in the domain of sociolinguistics. My question is: why use an umbrella term each time one of those languages is mentioned and why force such term when it's not recognized by their native speakers, nor by their linguistic authorities? 93.136.83.114 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between cultural niceties and the science of linguistics. Take the example of Alces alces in biology. In America it is called "moose". In Europe it is called "elk". But we do not have two different species just because it has two different names. This is the case of Serbo-Croatian. One community calls it "Bosnian", another calls it "Croatian", another calls it "Serbian", but it is just one mutually intelligible language. Therefore, just as there is one Latin binomial--Alces alces--that biologists use to cover the single species that is called "moose" and "elk" depending on which side of the Atlantic one lives on, so, too, there is one language term--Serbo-Croatian--that linguists use to cover the single language that is called "Bosnian", "Croatian", or "Serbian" depending on the ethnic identity of the person naming it. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What? You compared languages with different names for the same animal? Is this some kind of joke? I highly doubt this article is supposed to deal solely with linguistic criteria, since language and culture are inseparable entities, i.e. Croatian shto, cha and kaj are much closer sociolinguistically than Serbian and Croatian shto are. Anyway, there are differences even among the standard idioms, though they are insufficient to prevent rather good intelligibility, as long as it concerns shtokavian. Many people in this talk page noticed it is crazy to include the other two Croatian dialects (not Serbo-Croatian but Croatian, as there aren't any Serbs speaking them) in 'SC' because they are far from being as intelligible with Serbian language as shtokavian Croatian is.93.136.83.114 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Croatian shto, cha and kaj are much closer sociolinguistically than Serbian and Croatian shto are
Comparing any linguistic elements of relevance (even social factors), Croatian Shtokavian and Serbian Shtokavian are far closer to each other than Croatian Shtokavian is to either Kajkavian and Chakavian.
it is crazy to include the other two Croatian dialects
Croatian linguists (ones you conveniently called "linguistic authorities" for the Croatian language) put Kajkavian and Chakavian together with Shtokavian all the time. You reap what you sow. Tty29a (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You missed the point of the comparison. The point was that there is a difference between non-scientific knowledge and scientific knowledge. This article is based on the science of linguistics, not upon the political/ethnic/cultural desires of a group of people. While we doff our hat to the socio-cultural issues, the primary focus here is not socio-cultural, but linguistic. Linguistic science can be separated from the socio-cultural issues as these are irrelevant to the classification, history, and grammar of a particular language. They are of only minor concern in linguistic science. --Taivo (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair argument. Linguistics, despite being objective when proper methodology is used, can still end up using incorrect terms and classifications if already existing classifications are taken for granted and not re-evaluated by unbiased third-parties (classifications for this specific case have after all been done by linguists from the same sphere which nowadays classifies all variants of Shtokavian as separate languages as incorrect as it is). Kajkavian and Chakavian could quite easily be labeled as separate languages since there's certainly enough difference to consider them as such (be it grammar, vocabulary or even syntax). However, the fact of the matter is that an encyclopedia must use terminology and classification as accepted within fields of sciences that pertain to that specific subject, and as such, Serbo-Croatian is obviously the most supported.Tty29a (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Croatian linguists (ones you conveniently called "linguistic authorities" for the Croatian language) put Kajkavian and Chakavian together with Shtokavian all the time. When I said 'linguistic authorities', I meant Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics. And they do use the collective term 'Croatian' for all three Croatian dialects. In other words, there's no problem with putting them all together under a single ethnic (as well as cultural) term they all rightfully belong to, though that most certainly can't be said for lumping them all into Serbo-Croatian. That may well be the most commonly used term for the diasystem in question, but given the amount of text written here in this talk page I believe it is quite obvious there's something wrong with it. The voice of the native speakers and their institutions must not be disregarded.93.136.83.114 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is based on the science of linguistics, not upon the political/ethnic/cultural desires of a group of people. Then why do you use a source that clearly lists Croatian as a Western South Slavic language, without 'Serbo-Croatian' between 'Western' and 'Croatian'? It does contain a reference that it belongs to 'SC' as a macrolanguage, though a macrolanguage is not language as such. 93.136.83.114 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Will you stop repeating the same faulty arguments over and over again? Ethnicity doesn't determine language. Linguistics 101. Culture doesn't determine language either. They're just factors in the evolution of languages but they can't be used to distinguish fully mutually intelligible standard languages. Macro-language is there for a reason in the classification, you ignoring that and/or making up your own definition of what a macro-language is doesn't change anything. As for the "voice of native speakers" being of relevance here, I can't see how. Surely you don't expect laymen to decide how articles in the field of evolutionary biology will look like? Tty29a (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Anon IP, Ethnologue (to which you refer without naming) is by no means the only source for the linguistic information here. Indeed, Ethnologue is one of the minor sources used here. There are many, many other linguistic sources that have been mentioned on this Talk Page and in the article that refer to Serbo-Croatian and discuss the range of dialects that make up non-Slovenian Western South Slavic as a single language. Indeed, there is more linguistic difference between Kajkavian and Shtokavian than there is between the three subdialects of Shtokavian that are Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian: three subdialects of Štokavian?! I have never read something so stupid like this! What are many sources to say something like that? 78.0.148.74 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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. - it is written in the lead of this page. Almost none of it is true:

1. This term probably dates back to 1864 when it was invented by Croatian nationalists (not Serbian) but it was certainly not used that way in English from 1864. Use of that term in English can date only to period of SFRJ which means a 2nd half of the 20th century. Also, this term used by the Yugoslav communists was much closer to its meaning invented by Serbian nationalists between 2 WWs.
2. Croatian is registered under ISO as Croatian language in 2008 - one of the South Slavic languages and not Serbo-Croatian. Croatian is a label! Serbian is a label. Serbo-Croatian remained only in a part of international literature as a political endorsement of Yugoslavia. So S-C is not the common name of the language in English. Or at least, it shouldn't be. 78.0.148.74 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639-3: hrv - Croatian standard and a group of dialects at present or once spoken by the Croats! It means modern Croatian standard and Croatian dialects Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian.78.0.148.74 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

ISO 639-3 is only one source and just because a speech variety is given an ISO code doesn't mean it's a separate language by a linguistic definition. ISO uses sociolinguistic factors much more readily than scientific linguistic sources. Other examples of mutually intelligible "languages" with separate ISO codes are Snohomish, Skagit, and Lushootseed (in the latter case, a single speech variety actually has TWO ISO codes, but the ONE speech community doesn't want to get rid of either of them!). Too many other English sources use "Serbo-Croatian" to refer to all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic speech varieties. And if you think that "Croatian" includes Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian, then your definition of "Croatian" also includes Serbian and Bosnian since both of these are varieties of Shtokavian. In essence, you are demanding that "Serbo-Croatian" be renamed "Croatian" and subsume both Bosnian and Serbian as well. In that sense, you're just as imperialist as you claim the Serbs are. It is a well-established fact that the Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian standards are all varieties of Shtokavian. --Taivo (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Too many other English sources use "Serbo-Croatian" to refer to all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic speech varieties The use of bandwagon fallacies won't get us anywhere I'm afraid. Why don't we simply call Croatian language Croatian, without reducing it to a mere form of Serbo-Croatian? On a side note, the person above is correct; that language was not called Serbo-Croatian in the English speaking world until the time of communist Yugoslavia, regardless of the fact that it has its roots in the 19th century. 78.0.211.244 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It's been called "Serbo-Croatian" in English since the 1860s. Don't believe me? Search Google Books and restrict the date to the 19th century. Some of the hits will be encyclopedias, others popular magazines. (Caution: the cited date is not always correct. You need to verify it in the book itself.) — kwami (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Anon IP, you also have the very serious problem that non-Slovenian West South Slavic consists of three dialects--Kajkavian, Shtokavian, and Chakavian. The things called "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian" are all part of Shtokavian. Now, if you want to call Kaj, Sht, and Cha by the name "Croatian", then "Croatian" includes Bosnian and Serbian as well since these are subparts of Shtokavian. Thus, you have simply replaced the common English term "Serbo-Croatian" with "Croatian" and subsume Serbian and Bosnian under that label. You cannot label the whole with the name of a subpart and then expect other subparts to have separate labels. Labeling doesn't work that way. Your logic is completely fallacious. Serbo-Croatian is the set label in English that subsumes all of Kaj, Cha, and the three parts of Shto. --Taivo (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, they're two different things. Taxonomically there is no such thing as Croatian, as you point out. But sociolinguistically there is. We're dealing with two different classifications. "Croatian" is paraphyletic, like "moth" or "frog" in biology. There are "moths" (Lepidoptera less butterflies) and "frogs" (Anura less toads) according to common usage, they just are not legitimate taxonomic nodes. Here we have "Croatian" as (Serbo-Croatian less Serbian). — kwami (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have spent some time reading this discussion and I still fail to understand why exactly are you people focused on non-Slovene west south slavic dialects. Does Slovene not form a whole with other west south slavic dialects? 78.0.251.211 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovenian at an abstract level forms the other half of the West South Slavic sub-group. Your approach ignores the fact that Slovenian is closest only to Kajkavian (in fact we could argue that Kajkavian is better classified as a Slovenian dialect if it weren't for the fact that speakers of Kajkavian today identify themselves as Croats and their native dialect as part of Croatian because of geographical or historical accident, and that an important part of the Croatian world-view held to this day is the "rightness" of a banana-shaped "Triune Kingdom" whose capital sits in territory historically dominated by speakers of Kajkavian). The unintelligbility and divergence for speakers of Slovene grows as they move from Kajkavian toward Chakavian, and then Stokavian and then eastern Bulgarian. If Croatian or Serbo-Croatian had been standardized on Kajkavian then perhaps linguists could treat Western South Slavic as a pluricentric language with standardized centers in Ljubljana and Zagreb. However because Croatian or Serbo-Croatian have been standardized on neo-Štokavian, it's rather straightforward for Slavicists to divide the classification of West South Slavic into two because of the differences between neo-Štokavian and Kajkavian which hinder mutual intelligibility. For a list of isoglosses that separate Kajkavian from Štokavian, see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokavian#Relationship_towards_neighboring_dialects.
The implied answer of your final question seems to be that it would be pointless to have separate articles on Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian/Serbo-Croatian just because we could neatly group them under a bloated article called "West South Slavic". By the same token, the article Polish_language describes the result and modern expression of the standardization pf certain West Slavic dialects spoken historically along the course of the Vistula river which form the basis of modern Polish. No one from the most ardent Polish "separatist" nationalist to the neutral observer to the most ardent pan-Slavist "unifier" would argue that it'd be more desirable, accurate or academically rigorous to replace seperate articles on Czech_language, Kashubian_language, Polish_language, Slovak_language or Sorbian_languages among others with a common article on the recognized grouping called West_Slavic_languages. Vput (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, though my question was supposed to point out that Kajkavian is included into non-Slovene west south Slavic dialects because of the ethnic affiliation of its speakers, regardless of the fact that it is mutually understandable with dialects of Slovene language, although it must be said it is not as close to Slovene standard as standard Croatian and Serbian languages are close to each other. If Kajkavian is excluded from Slovene because of the ethnic affiliation then the same principle must be applied to Štokavian, namely Serbian and Croatian must be viewed separately because of its speakers, otherwise you'd be using double standards. When I stumbled upon this article I didn't have the slightest idea what was going on behind the "curtains". I've read several other talk pages and was appalled to see what appeared to me as a series of systematic attempts by a handful of locals to force their opinion by replacing any reference to Croatian or Serbian with Serbo-Croatian in related texts, and many more. By doing so, they are not only damaging wikipedia's credibility but also creating dangerous and long lasting divisions under pretense of making wikipedia more practical. Judging from the comments I saw here, I am likely to be tagged as nationalist or something worse. So be it, but somebody has to react or you people might as well delete this article and transfer anything of value to the article about Srbo-Croatian. Come to think of it, even that would be more preferable than to see my native tongue reduced to just a variety of some imaginary meta-language by people who either don't speak it or have a very limited understanding of this problem. --a disappointed reader-- 93.136.21.216 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we need to stick to our sources. From what I've seen, the isoglosses separating Kajkavian from Slovenian are just as deep as those separating Kajkavian from Cha-Shtokavian. There is some coherence to SC, though, because of the profound historical influence Shto has had on the other two lects. But you're right: if we were working purely cladistically, we would have no SC, no Serbian, and no Croatian, just Shto, Kaj, and Cha (or perhaps Kaj and Cha-Shto). We might not have a Slovene either. However, we do have articles on Croatian and Serbian as well. We can't say they're both varieties of Shtokavian, because in the case of Croatian that is not true. So we need to go up one level, to SC. To pretend they're independent South Slavic languages would be ridiculous; if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with almost the entire English literature on the subject. Again, we need to stick to WP:RS.
What we have here are two ethnically defined languages which share a common dialect as the basis of their standards. We have a word in English for that set, "Serbo-Croatian". If it's imaginary, so are Croatian and Serbian. If you can prove us wrong, not with WP:Truth but with reliable sources, by all means do so. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We can't say they're both varieties of Shtokavian, because in the case of Croatian that is not true. So we need to go up one level, to SC. - This is where your quazi-construction culminates. Going up one level can be only South Slavic languages. Invention of S-C is useless. Croatian is not just a variety of Štokavian, that's true, but going up one level brings us to an area where there is no any continuum between Croatian and Serbian - what makes them similar are portions taken from similar (not the same!) dialect (which means at the "lowest" level and only in a particular geographical area) and not their belonging to same macro-speaking range (at some "higher" level). What is characteristic of Ča and Kaj is something that doesn't exist in Serbian, but often exists in Slovene. Also, your attempts to put Kaj aside from Ča-Što is ridiculous. Ča in the north is more close to Kaj and Slovene, Ča in the south is more close to Croatian Štokavian. However, both northern and southern Čakavian are very different to Serbian Štokavian, as well as Kajkavian is, and Croatian Štokavian is not far from it. Differences between Croatian and Serbian Štokavian standards are ranging from 20% to 40%, according to the linguists. That's quite enough to speak about different languages, especially seen in different vocabularies, speaking about completely mutually inteligible languages is repeating very well known communist dogma and not real linguistic matter. S-C is imaginary because it is impossible that it includes all of Croatian and all of Serbian, and doesn't include Slovene, Bulgarian and Macedonian too in the same time!!! S-C is non-sense. Many people have already explained you what S-C was and how it was used. You can't turn political term into linguistic just like that, over the night. It seems that your English sources are based on politically ordered quazi-scientific literature from communist era. 78.0.160.48 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
"You can't turn political term into linguistic just like that". That is exactly what you are doing--uniting Cha, Kaj, and Shto spoken by Croats as opposed to Serbs (who speak Shto) and Bosnians (who also speak Shto) is entirely a political usage. And the "linguists" that claim 20-40% difference between Croatian and Serbian are entirely Croatian politically and ethnically. --Taivo (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly not true. Croatian Ča, Kaj and Što are already naturally related. All of these 3 dialects were called by the same name - Croatian - in history, by its writers. You were shown examples, citations, but you ignored it. Also you constantly ignore differences inside this Što area. It is not one and unique dialect. The linguists who claim 20-40% difference between Cro and Serb are people who were researching it linguistically. If you search for science as basis then you must search for the scientific works of that kind. These researches were never disputted linguistically, only politically and you dispute it the same way. You dispute it by ethnicity of the scientists which is crazy bearing in mind that these scientists are the speakers of that language, logically they are more interested in researching culture they belong too, than some others. That's how it is out there in the real world. So their ethnicity is not an argument to refute them, quite opposite. That "argument" only shows that you don't have linguistic argument. "Completely mutually inteligible" is not based on real linguistic researches, but rather on same wording dogma which propagated political unification of all South Slavs as final master-plan. S-C was political term by original and there's no doubt about it, it was political term in all kind of usages later and it's also out of doubt. You must be perfect ignorant not to know that. 78.0.160.48 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
"Cha, Kaj and Shto...were called by the same name", therefore, since Bosnian and Serbian are also Shto you are claiming that all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects must be called "Croatian". That is a political argument and not based on common English usage, but only on a Croatian nationalistic agenda. And the statement that Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian are completely mutually intelligible is based entirely on linguistic research, only a political agenda claims otherwise. I'm not going to continue on this since you are simply pushing a Croatian nationalist POV and not any kind of linguistic reality. --Taivo (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Cha, Kaj and Shto...were called by the same name", therefore, since Bosnian and Serbian are also Shto you are claiming that all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects must be called "Croatian". - here you show, not only a lack of arguments, but also bad-faith from your side; I don't claim that all the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects must be called "Croatian" and I didn't notice that it was claimed by the others, as well as it is not claimed by the linguists. Quite opposite - you, Kwami etc are the ones who claim something like that but under name S-C. What Croats claim here is that there is no "non-Slovenian West South Slavic" language continuum, since all 3 Croatian dialects share a lot with Slovene (especially Ča and Kaj), but also eastern West South Slavic dialects (especially Serbian) share a lot with Eastern South Slavic group. It all means that S-C is simply just an unreal construction. If we can construct Serbo-Croatian then we can also construct Croato-Slovene language group or any other combination that anyone can imagine. So don't lie!
That is a political argument and not based on common English usage, but only on a Croatian nationalistic agenda. - After you lied what is claimed by whom you keep on insisting that this topic is politicized by the Croatian side, although all of it started after you introduced S-C into categorization and article lead and although S-C really is political term, while the others aren't. So you upgrade first lie with another.
And the statement that Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian are completely mutually intelligible is based entirely on linguistic research, only a political agenda claims otherwise. - no that was not linguistic research, that was propaganda and still is in your arrangement. How Croatian and Serbian standards are completely mutually intelligible is best shown in example I have found in the archives posted by some Croat I guess:
English: Add carrot, popper and mushrooms to turkey soup, mix with a spoon and cook 1 hour.
Croatian: Dodaj mrkvu, papar i gljive u juhu od purice, zamiješaj žlicom i kuhaj 1 sat.
Serbian: Dodaj šargarepu, biber i pečurke u čorbu od ćurke, smešaj kašikom i kuvaj 1 čas.
There are no 'šargarepa', 'biber', 'pečurke', 'čorba', 'ćurka', 'smešati', 'kuvati' in Croatian standard and dialects! And opposite works too. What is real scientific level of sources propagated by you? Obviously very poor. 78.0.160.48 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Anon, if you can demonstrate that "Ča, Kaj and Što are already naturally related", as you claim (and I'm not convinced it's true, despite common usage), then you have proven the existence of Serbo-Croatian, since that is the English name of the unit consisting of Ča, Kaj and Što. Thank you for supporting our point, even if inadvertently. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is again typical manipulation often shown here. You base relation between Croatian and Serbian by only Štokavian dialect but you do insist that other dialects must be included simply because spoken by the same ethnicity?! Once again you ignore that there is no one solid Štokavian dialect in a region, as well as Taivo ignores it a few rows above. 78.0.160.48 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite your bad faith and subsequent hypocrisy in demanding that we not demonstrate bad faith, no, I do not "insist that other dialects must be included simply because spoken by the same ethnicity". It is Croat nationalists who have insisted that since the 19th century or perhaps earlier. Are you arguing that Cha and Kaj are not Croatian? I can live with that. We would then have 3 languages here: Chakavian, Kajkavian (or would that be included under Slovene?), and Shtokavian, better known in English as Serbo-Croatian. Croats then speak three languages, of which Croatian is only one. Fine. What are your sources to justify such a change, since Croat nationalists will freak out if we follow your advice? — kwami (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Kwami but I never said that Cha and Kaj are not Croatian! When you don't have arguments you manipulate your opponent statements. Naughty, naughty, very naughty. What I said is opposite. From what I saw in the archives you were already shown historical sources which show that all Čakavian, Štokavian and Kajkavian were Croatian language much before any modern standardization. Ča was literal Croatian from the 13th, Što from the 14th and Kaj from the 16th century. Croatian standard used local Štokavian from Dubrovnik for the main structure, the one that had been defined as literal Croatian in the 17th century and recognised as natural language of the Croats in the southern Dalmatia. Dialect used for Serbian standard is different. 78.0.160.48 (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Not naughty, merely calling you on your incoherence. You were the one objecting to lumping the dialects of Croatian together as one language. But reason is obviously a lost cause. Bye. — kwami (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to question historical inscriptions and writings? Especially from the 17th century (2 centuries before any final South Slavic standardization) speakers and writers of Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian Croatian called it 'Croatian language' and considered these are 3 dialects of Croatian. It's evident from historical records. But what is hard to believe in this case is that you and your few supporters are not able to deal with the basic terminology related to South Slavic languages. You are taking Štokavian for a language!!! It's not language. It is "dialect" or "speech" depending on level. Štokavian is dialect only in relation to some language. In macro-language level it is not a dialect nor language, it is "speech". That means that there is Štokavian dialect of Croatian and there is Štokavian dialect of Serbian but there is Štokavian South Slavic speech. Štokavian dialect of Croatian and Štokavian dialect of Serbian are different. It is not same language and it is not same dialect! But who am I talking to? Someone who knows nothing about history of SS languages, someone who knows nothing about terminology related to SS languages, but defends his distorted version of reality anyway, in this undoubtly unreliable encyclopedia. It is unreliable thanks to people like you. 78.0.147.215 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Shtokavian is dialect only in relation to some language". Thus, since standard Croatian, standard Serbian, and standard Bosnian are all based on Shtokavian, and are all mutually intelligible, then they are subdialects of a dialect in relation to some language, and that language, which includes Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian is called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Faculty of Philosophy in Pula M. Samardžija: Raslojenost jezika (lectures)
  2. ^ http://sstk.skole.t-com.hr/tin/Predmeti/Hrvatski/jezik4.doc
  3. ^ http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hrv
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_language/Archive_7&oldid=1256515960"