Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 28 October 2010

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Macedonia case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Croatian language. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Croatian language at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

1RR

This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But your "editing" concept, Courcelles, (I am refering to the joke of wikipedia being an "open encyclopedia") is also plain nonsense. For example, although I am of Spanish origins, I am a linguist, unlike the "editors" who hold the rights to decide what goes. And I see in the first paragraph a plain LIE. Not just an error, but a LIE. And one so sadly typcal for the croatian nationalists who are only capable of displaying stupidity and ignorance when a discussion is being held.

Here's the error: "Two dialects, Chakavian and Kajkavian, are exclusively Croatian..."

One has to be a moron and a croat igonrant motivated by his/her nationalist hatred for the rest of the world, as they are, to say something like that. Kajkavian is NOT exclusively croatian dialect because it is official language of Slovenia.

Fullstop.

Anyone wishing to debate this point is an idiot with no knowledge. In the light of that, the second part of the same erroneous sentence (the second sentence of the first paragraph of this joke of the page, is just as stupid: "and there are a few Croatian speakers of a third, Torlakian."

Croats speaking that dialect, by default live in, nowadays, different countries. Countries situated on the eastern side of the southeastern Europe. Torlakian is specific to the people Croatians hate so passionately and want to be disassociated from by inventing their own language.

So to say that Torlakian is the third "dialect" of non-existent "croatian" language, is only to promote political agendas.

This primitive and continuous "croatian" effort to re-write and re-design linguistic history of the language is what should be really sanctioned here. That is what the real problem is. These primitive ignorants are tryingto tell us, the real scientists, what is the politically correct "truth" so that they can point their finger at their own brothers and say: "We a re not like you!". And then go to church and declare themselves "Love thy neighbour", "christians"...

The good news is that wikipedia is, fortunately, not authority on linguistics and serious scientific studies. Not even a reference. So no matter how much peasants from Dinaric mountains, still chasing sheep (both serbs and croats) work on distorting the facts, the facts will not be distorted.

There's only one language and it cannot be named anything other than serbo-croatian, or croato-serbian, whichever way your political schizofrenia goes. That is the fact. Now all you "linguists" go on about your stupid efforts to invent your "languages", but in the real life, the one that is only based on cold hard scientific facts, your languages do NOT exist.

The sooner you accept that, the better for all, and your primitive and bestial nationalisms may even subside. Hopefully even get cured one day.

And Curcelles, please correct the above error and remove the statement that kajkavian is "exclusive" croatian dialect. Because it is not. It is also used in Slovenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.91.241 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to Courcelles to correct any error. It's up to the regular editors here to reach a consensus. They can then use {{edit protected}} to request that the agreed edit be made to a fully protected page. TFOWR 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Message by 120.22.91.241 is full of anti-Croat ethnic slurs. Kubura (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. There are bigots on all sides. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Whither Now?

It is clear at this point that there is an impasse on what to call the language that comprises the range of mutually intelligible dialects spoken in the former Yugoslavian regions of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. ISO 639-3 calls that language "Serbo-Croatian" and gives separate identifiers to "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian". Croatian nationalists, however, refuse to recognize "Serbo-Croatian" as a cover term for that language. No other options have been offered by the nationalists for what to call that single language. Arbitration has been mentioned. Is that the next step? As a linguist, I'm willing to compromise on some construction other than "Serbo-Croatian" as long as it is reasonable and has at least some usage in contemporary English linguistic literature. But I'm not willing to treat Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as if they were three independent and mutually unintelligible branches of South Slavic. They are not. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually standard ISO 639-3 is talking about hbs macrolanguage, not language per se, and hbs is actually new version of now obsolete sh identifier. Few remarks about above writing:

• mutually intelligible dialects - that can be talked about. A lot.
• Croatian nationalists - are you chauvinist or just plain POW pusher? How you dare to use derogatory terms for users who are not thinking same as you? Please check Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch).
• But I'm not willing - nobody asked you what you are willing. Sources will tell how this article will look like, not any user of Misplaced Pages. Or at least that should be so if we will follow Five pillars of Misplaced Pages.

Please do not use rude or offensive language in future while in the same time trying to pose as mediator, thank you kindly. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two groups of editors involved here. There are those who are on the side of linguistic accuracy with linguistic references and there are those who are on the side of separating all things Croatian away from linkage with all things Serbian, including the term "Serbo-Croatian" or any wording that says Croatian and Serbian are differing national labels for the same language. Whatever we call the two opposing camps, the fact of the impasse remains. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, to reword Taivo's post in a less objectionable way:

It is clear at this point that there is an impasse on what to call the macrolanguage that comprises the range of mutually intelligible varieties spoken in the former Yugoslavian regions of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. ISO 639-3 calls that macrolanguage "Serbo-Croatian" and gives separate identifiers to "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian." A number of Croats, however, dislike "Serbo-Croatian" as a cover term for that macrolanguage but no other options have been offered by said Croats. Arbitration has been mentioned. Is that the next step? As a linguist, I have no problem with a term other than "Serbo-Croatian" as long as it has at least some usage in contemporary English linguistic literature. But, as sources say otherwise, we can't treat Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as if they were three independent and mutually unintelligible branches of South Slavic.

— Ƶ§œš¹ 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Aeusoes1. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And concerning ISO 639-3, I only used that as a single example of a reliable linguistic source that uses a single name for the language that comprises Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian--there are hundreds, if not thousands, of others and most use the term "Serbo-Croatian". So don't get bound up with ISO 639-3 and whether it calls "Serbo-Croatian" a language or a macrolanguage. The point is that reliable and verifiable linguistic references use "Serbo-Croatian" as the label for the single language that comprises Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. --Taivo (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this description of the situation from the Shtovakian dialect article generally considered to be accurate by the editors here? Fainites scribs 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The shorter answer is to treat that description of Štokavian with caution.

The longer answer lies below.

That description is only partially accurate as it reflects a Croatian slant so as to amplify (or even worse, to make up) differences between Štokavian used by Croats and that by Bosniaks and Serbs. The questionable parts involve the place of Neo-Štokavian as the basis of modern standard Croatian and then the influence of Chakavian and Kaykavian on the standard language. That description repeats uncritically the Croatian account that Štokavian would become the basis of standard Croatian as early as the 17th century. In other words, the intellectuals/writers of the 17th century somehow had the capacity to forsee the decisive standardization efforts of the 19th century in the Balkans which arose on impulses of Romantic nationalism of the 18th century. The timelines are thus jumbled but this is the only way for linguistic history to align with the Croatian historical narrative. What's more is that the choice to create a Štokavian-standard for the Croats in the 19th century was given the decisive and effective push by the de facto leader of the Croatian national revival (Ludevit Gaj) who himself was a native speaker of a Kaykavian dialect. Expediency in countering rising Hungarian nationalism and supporting Illyrianism rather than that temporally-incoherent trajectory of language history dictated Gaj's thinking. Even afterward, there were several unsuccessful attempts to incorporate features from Chakavian or Kaykavian dialects into this emerging Neo-Štokavian standard. An example of this was an unsuccessful insistence not to codify the declension in the dative, locative and instrumental plural on the Neo-Štokavian (more precisely, Eastern Herzegovinian) model but instead on features typical of certain Chakavian and Kaykavian sub-dialects at the time. These "rebels" were sometimes called the "Ahkavians" since they wanted to maintain the distinction between the locative plural and other peripheral plural cases on the model of these non-Štokavian dialects using the ending "-ah". In contrast the Neo-Štokavian dialects had already merged the old endings for the plural in dative, locative and instrumental (-ima/-ama). Therefore the Croatian insistence of Štokavian being the "obvious" choice for Croatian standardization long before the time of Gaj, Karadžić et al. (i.e. something without a Serbian connection) fails to hold water when recalling the efforts of the "Ahkavians" for one. Their resistance and efforts show that they didn't think that Štokavian was an obvious choice as the base for Croatian standardization.

The second part that is questionable or misleading is the description's statement that the influence of Chakavian and Kaykavian on standard Croatian has been growing over the past several decades. The truth is that Chakavian and Kaykavian sub-dialects today are confined to rural settings and what is sometimes passed off as "Chakavian" or "Kaykavian" by modern educated Croats (most of whom are now no longer native speakers of Chakavian or Kaykavian) is a stereotyped form of Chakavian or Kaykavian with heavy Štokavian influence. There are festivals (e.g. poetry readings, song festivals) that attempt to elevate these dialects to more prestigious entities but outside these feel-good festivals, the dialects are under overwhelming pressure from the Neo-Štokavian standard language which thanks to the educational system and official media is held as the model for emulation and also the effective means to ensure social, educational and professional advancement in the country. Croatian language planners have expressed greater openness over the past several years to incorporate Chakavian or Kaykavian elements into the standard but so far it has been all talk and no action. Not even the wave of nationalist purism in the 1990s brought an incorporation of Chakavian and Kaykavian elements into the standard language even though the incorporation of such elements would have also achieved the same nationalist goal of differentiating the Croatian standard from the older Serbo-Croatian standard. Indeed the differences between the standard language and Chakavian and Kaykavian have been maintained or even widened since the 1990s by the reinterpretation of the "yat" reflex (i.e. regular allowance of "ie" which had previously not occurred natively as a reflex of "yat" in Ekavian, IJEkavian, Ikavian or JEkavian), use of neologisms or Štokavianized calques, and reimposition of elements last attested in Štokavian literature of the 17th century from Dubrovnik. Vput (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There're Chakavisms and Kaykavisms that had integrated into standard Croatian long ago. Even more, Chakavian and Kaykavian are even now influencing standard Croatian language. Kubura (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Kubura, would you be so kind as to put money where your mouth is and give unambiguous examples of features (can be lexical, phonological or morphological) of demonstrably/verifiably Chakavian or Kaykavian origin that are frequently-used AND have been codified as acceptable (i.e. "correct") in the standard (Neo-Štokavian) Croatian language of 2010? These features cannot exist in standard Bosnian or standard Serbian, otherwise claims of Chakavian and Kaykavian being exclusively part of standard Croatian are invalidated further. Vput (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vput. Here're some Kaykavisms that entered standard Croatian: kukac, tjedan, rubac some Chakavisms: klesar, spužva <ref>Faculty of Philosophy in Pula M. Samardžija: Raslojenost jezika (lectures)</ref><ref></ref> Kajkavisms are also vijak, puran, streha, krasan, hlače, udova, trh, skrb,... Linguist Tomo Maretić and his followers expelled all neologisms and kaykavisms from standard Croatian (excerpts from the book by Miro Kačić: Jezikoslovna promišljanja), because that'd endanger "language unity" of Croats and Serbs. Čakavism is also spodoba, some all-Croatian words are now preserved mostly in Kajkavian, so one may find them as dialectism, like "podrapat" . About the influences: Chakavian and Kaykavian (non) use of undetermined indefinite (corr. by Kubura Kubura (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)) form of adjectives. I've read that previous month, I'll give you the source later. Remind me if I forget. Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My message above is example of, as Taivo said, "Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages...". Vput, I haven't forgotten you. I've been looking for the info about that influence in my books, thinking, on which page it was, in which book, which author...but then it came to my mind that I've probably read that on the internet. You're lucky, it's the online source :). Now I have to remember where did I read that... Kubura (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here're the author and the article: Marija Znika: Kategorija određenosti i predikatno ime (The Category of Definiteness and Nominal Predication), magazine Jezik, Vol.53 No.1/2006, p. 16 . "Oblična neutralizacija odraz je povijesnoga razvoja u kojemu je, pod utjecajem raznih činitelja, oslabila opreke određeno ≠ neodređeno i na području štokavskoga narječja. Jedan od bitnih činitelja koji su pridonijeli slabljenju te opreke i u štokavskomu narječju, pa onda i hrvatskom standardu kojemu je ono osnovica, utjecaj je čakavskoga i kajkavskoga narječja u kojima nema opreke određeno ≠ neodređeno." Sorry, Vput, for waiting so long, pace of living in Croatia is much slower than in Anglosaxon world. Additionally, I was searching (see my message above), besides my everyday obligations and my private life... Anyway, I've kept my promise. Kubura (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've forgot the translation: "the borders between definite and indefinite were weakened also on the area of Štokavian dialect. One of important factors that contributed to that weakening... is influence of Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects, in which there's no border definite ≠ indefinite". Kubura (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo: Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro are not "former Yugoslavian regions". They were consisting republics of Yugoslavia. They had the status of the state, explicitly declared in their Constitutions. Kubura (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic/region, it doesn't matter what you call them. What is important is that the boundaries of these areas did not (and still do not) coincide with any dialect boundary within "Serbo-Croatian" or "Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian". You're still just tap dancing around the fact that all of these "languages" are mutually intelligible variants of a single language. What do you want to call that language? And what are your verifiable reliable sources to back that up? --Taivo (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

From the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia: U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik – standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski. In translation: "In the Socialist Republic of Croatia, the language of public service is the Croatian literary language - a standardized form of people's language of Croats and Serbs of Croatia, also known as Croatian or Serbian." Croatian or Serbian was another (more cumbersome) name for Serbo-Croatian. So respect the history Kubura: the notion of Croatian as a "separate language" dates back only recently in history, after the secession of the administrative region of Croatia from Yugoslavia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, anybody among us can say "I'm the linguist.". How many books in Croatian, Bosniac, Montenegrin and Serbian have you read? How many belletristic, how many scientific from various scientific fields, how many schoolbooks in those languages? How many works in those languages have you written? How many thousands of hours have you listened or even talked in those languages? In which science magazine have you published? "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linguistics"? Why don't you challenge "nationalist" linguists from Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro in their linguistic magazines? We'd gladly read your argumentation there. We'd gladly read when you answer the questions posed there, under the moderation of the true linguists and scientists, that require civil writing and expressing style, that don't allow etiquetting, personal attacks etc.. Or even better, challenge them in national daily newspapers from those countries. So you can enlighten those nations. Kubura (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant to the issue here, Kubura. I have asked a simple question and expect a straightforward answer. 1) There is a single language that people in various parts of the former Yugoslavia call "Serbian", "Croatian", and "Bosnian". 2) What do you want to call that language? 3) What are your scientific references to back up that name? It doesn't matter one bit whether I speak the language or you speak the language. All that matters in Misplaced Pages is verifiable reliable sources. If you want a scientific discussion then put up your references. Kwami and I have listed a score of references above discussing the issue. If you disagree with those sources, then where are your sources to counter? --Taivo (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, you and many other Croats continually miss the point. Native speakers of any language/dialect/idiom/variant are only preferred when it comes to USAGE (for example, I could ask YOU how to use futur drugi when communicating - there's little contest). However these same native speakers can harbour all sorts of linguistic misconceptions because the vast majority of them lack professional training as linguists equipped to deal with, analyze or understand matters of classification, dialectology, historical linguistics or even all of the reasons WHY what they speak/write/hear is in the condition that is. By your logic, if Serbs were to declare that THEIR language/dialect/variant were IDENTICAL to Croatian, then you as a native-speaker of Croatian would have to agree with the Serbs' claim because the Serbs would argue that their native command of their language/dialect/variant makes them the ultimate judges in determining the relationship of their language/dialect/variant with others.

The nationalist linguists in the former Yugoslavia have indeed been challenged by other linguists, so there's no need to widen the fight by adding Taivo (unless that's all you want to do). A recent example of scholarly challenge has come in Prof. Robert Greenberg's book "Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration" (2006) which describes the outrage and complaints of Croatian linguists who were initially scandalized by the book. Greenberg exposed Balkan linguistic myths and historical developments for what they were to the dismay of Croatian linguists. In addition, they weren't happy when he discussed the degree to which nationalism has infiltrated modern Croatian philological circles nor did they like his reluctance to side with them uncritically in their idiosyncratic reinterpretation of the development of Serbo-Croatian. Vput (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, dear Vput, do you know what? I was, as I discovered, a professor of eugenics in my former life. I had all the qualifications -- I had a degree on the wall. I taught a sacred teaching: that the whites are better than the blacks and Jews. I thought I knew everything, and had the right to teach it -- though all along my conscience blamed me. But I didn't listen. And now I'm a stinking programmer, and a Jew to boot.  ;)

Forgive the way I express myself. The moral is that your linguists are heartless when they think they know better, and you oughtn't suppose that they have any right to meddle here because according to somebody's curriculum they were the best students in the world. --VKokielov (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are forgiven (incoherent though your analogy is). Incoherency notwithstanding, the insistence on discounting scientific rigor (I suppose this is what you mean by being "heartless") reduces any field of inquiry to nothing more than a process dependent wholly on Brownian motion or human fancy, lacking even more explanatory or predictive power. To keep on the topic of language, if the prevailing nationalist attitude of Hungarians in the 19th century would have taken precedence over the comparative linguistic analysis, then we would be saying that Hungarians speak a Turkic language, and that their language has a trivial connection to certain languages spoken in Siberia and northern Europe. Vput (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, all this would be splendid, if you were arguing about substance. From the start you are arguing about names. Again and again you say that the rest of the world calls the language Serbocroatian. So it does. What of it? When a word evokes negative emotions among certain people, isn't it common courtesy never to use it in public? Here in America we have a word like that; it starts with N and raises half the hurricanes in the Atlantic. But it's only a word. Anywhere else in the world they would raise their eyebrows at us. Shall I make a redirect with that name? if I did, what do you think would happen?

as to the nearness itself, it merits no comment save that the languages are very close -- and that not in the introduction but in the body of the text, where it can stand modestly clothed, in lieu of glaring like the naked man in Times Square. --VKokielov (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and what you call "nationalism" -- a blanket name, make note -- is only a reaction. A reaction of force, but a reaction nonetheless. This campaign has gone on unflagging since Misplaced Pages began, and always the front soldiers are not those who have an excuse to defend unity -- children of mixed marriages, devoted activists of peace, ... -- but foreigners. --VKokielov (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

whaddaya know. the "N" word has its own article. hallelujah. But then let the second sentence of Serbo-Croatian language run: "the name "Serbo-Croatian" has generally been a linguist's term, with speakers of the language calling it Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian. Then cite Lockwood, as I will do presently here. --VKokielov (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, as per usual, derailing the discussion while spewing nationalist vitriol and ad hominems. Why are you not permablocked yet? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This assault and divertion of topic requires answer.
I do not tag my opponents as "nationalists", I do not accuse them for "spewing nationalist vitriol", I do not name my opponents as "PoV partisans" and I do not say "sod off" to my opponents. I do not tag whole wikiprojects as "nazi-pedia" . I don't insult four nations on the national basis "...not these ridiculous nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" or "Bosnian language" (and soon-coming in the fall 2009 "Montenegrin language").". I do not put myself above scientific institutions by saying "Vandalism by several IP address, in what appears to be several PoV pushers in Croatian academic institutions.". I do not violate WP:CRYSTAL with "Almost all of them would probably call their language srpskohrvatski, as it was officially called before 1991"". I do not etiquette my opponents as "nationalist bigots" (someone else was warned by admin because of that). I do not tell to co-discutant "you insolent nationalist troll" "bigoted nationalist" "Proven hardline Croatian nationalist". I do not delete warnings from my talkpages (deleting 3.528 bytes of content), leaving them hidenn in archive's history . I do not switch thesis, but you do call your co-discutant's words as "nationalist nonsenses" for the things that were your very messages . I do not blank whole referenced articles with mere redirect . I do not call opponents contributions as "rubbish" . I do not revert to "my" version after my opponent kindly asks me to not to do that and invites me to discuss. I do not attack, and especially I do not attack after my opponent kindly asks me not to do that . I do not name kind appeals as trolling . Maybe I sound too biased, but even other users told you "but I think that you are treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much. " . I do not comprehend Misplaced Pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND and I do not proudly say that "Misplaced Pages is battleground".
I do not badger every opponent of my idea on votings (with loooong messages) (how many times do you see "Ivan Štambuk"), badgering to every detail, that even the original abstainer changed attitude to oppose "So, dialog is impossible. Switching to oppose. --Millosh 13:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) " (Millosh is steward).
Are these admins biased because they warned you on your attacking behaviour and namecalling, e.g. "When you start with "Croatian nationalist bigots, most admins just turn off and ignore you. Try looking a bit less biased in your namecalling." (Ricky81682) , "Please do not call other editors names, such as "troll". You can be blocked for making personal attacks by doing that" (A.B.) . Or Kwamikagami: "But if you can avoid calling them idiots, or other personal attacks, and maintain a professional attitude..." .
I do not accuse my opponents that they are "sockpuppeted/abused by multiple users" on discussions with usual tagging as "troll". I do not name the person I find suspicious as sockpuppet (on discussions).
I do not invite/incite to ignoring of discussions by etiquetting the opponents as "trolls" .
I do not attack my opponents, after they answer me on the questions I've posed. Ivan did this question, my prompt answer and after that he said "Kubura you're simply trolling ..." .
How many ad hominems attacks WP:ATTACK, uncivility WP:CIVIL, etiquetting WP:ETIQ, violating of WP:BATTLEGROUND do you see here?
Having opposing attitude is your right. But Misplaced Pages in English isn't your property WP:OWN, on which you'll block your opponent that does not want to think the way you want. Misplaced Pages is not "permablock-per-wish" project.
After such Štambuk's behaviour (especially since recent incitation to permablock), I take very seriously the message Štambuk sent to this user, that opposed to his attitude "...trolling as usual. If I see you blocking "trolls" such as ..., you are so dead.". Kubura (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I do not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOT by calling the scientists cited by my opponents as "nutjobs", "ignorant", "intellectually dishonest". . Kubura (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not insult major national hero, pillar of national literature, and national icon of the small nation, that is so proud of that person "The murderous thug Njegoš".
I do not insult every nation that is proud of its sovereign nation and state "pitiful concept of a prisonlike entity called a "sovereign nation-state"".
I do not hide behing anonymous "we" with "...how one "feels"...Why should we care anyway".
I do not attack my opponent with words "you display a typical knee-jerk reaction of a Croatian nationalist floating in his reality distortion field bubble that we've chewed over countless time already" . Kubura (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOT by calling the scientists (cited by my opponents) as "proven history fabricators". User Aeusoes1 warned you with "you mention that Brozović, Katičić, Babić, and Laden are "proven history fabricators." What is the basis of this? How do we determine which Croatian linguists are academically dishonest nutjobs and which aren't." . Kubura (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple issue. If Slavic specialists in Croatia say X, but Slavic specialists from every other part of the world say Y, then there is a clear problem with the statements of the Croatian Slavic specialists. --Taivo (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really get at the heart of the issue, though. We don't say there's a problem with the Russian perspective on Joseph Stalin simply because it's different, do we?

I'm not "warning" anyone, by the way; I'm getting at the basis of statements made about Croatian scholars. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban notice

For your information: the aggressive anonymous user who was last posting from 78.3.27.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been topic-banned from this page and all related topics. Any edit that is recognisably by the same person (from new IPs or sock accounts) can be reverted on sight, without regard to 3RR or other limitations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Language tree

The language tree was corrected to reflect the reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=hrv Vodomar (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And it was corrected back, per the discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, which you have ignored. — kwami (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BS ! The reference http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hbs and reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=hrv do not support the claim for serbo-croatian, the only one left is David Dalby, Linguasphere (1999/2000, Linguasphere Observatory), pg. 445, 53-AAA-g, "Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian". So in this case it is FALSE referencing. Vodomar (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

" In brief, on purely linguistic grounds, two speech system are considered to be a dialects of the same languag if they are (predominantly) mutually intelligible. This makes Cockney and Scouse dialects of English,..... On the other hand, purely linguistic considerations can be 'outranked' by sociopolitical criteria, so that we can encounter speech systems which are mutually intelligible, but which have nonetheless been designated as separate languages. A well-recognised example is the status of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, which are counted as separate languages despite the fact that members of the community can understand each other... A more recent example is Serbo-Croatian, formerly widely used as a language name to encompass a set of varieties used in former Yugoslavia, ... now largely replaced by names Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" David Crystal "Language Death", Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 11, 12 . Vodomar (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Speakers of the Scandanavian languages can't understand eachother "just like that". While they can make out parts of what speakers of the other languages are saying, they have considerable difficulty, especially Swedes trying to understand Danish, and will miss (i.e. cannot understand) a more or less considerable amount of what was said. Read The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages, a study that has quantified this a bit. This is in stark contrast with speakers of the Serbo-Croatian standards, who will not even always notice that the other is speaking in a different standard. Therefore any such comparison is flawed. --JorisvS (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Gillian Scotland

Local dialects have a lower status than standard languages. Do you think they deserve to be protected as actively as, say, Welsh or Gaelic?"

"David Crystal (Guest Speaker)

I do. The distinction between language and dialect is, after all, somewhat arbitrary. Ten years ago, in former Yugoslavia, people spoke dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Today, Serbian and Croatian are being pursued as different languages - and Bosnian, too. Some countries do actively support their dialects - in the UK, for example, we have the Yorkshire Dialect Society."

see: http://wordsmith.org/chat/dc.html . David Crystal is a well known linguist. Vodomar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

I assume you're trying to make a point, but you aren't saying anything we don't already know, and it isn't particularly relevant for your argument, unless I've misunderstood what your argument is. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I also assuming that you are not tyring to accept the point that was made by David Crystal, you can't shoehorn Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrian in the same box anymore, as it is not considered valid anymore the example given were the Scandinavian languages. Whatever argument is put in front of you is disregarded, because you consider your references better than anyone else can bring up. Vodomar (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sources can not be taken in a selective manner. If a source (http://www.ethnologue.com/) is acceptable for the vast majority of articles, then it should be the case with the article on the Croatian language. --Roberta F. (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And according to Ethnologue, Croatian is Serbo-Croatian. Vodomar didn't like it, so we used a different ref. If you wish to put the Ethnologue ref back in, be my guest: it supports the existing version of the article. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

{outdent}
The most obvious fact is that no one uses Taivo's paradigm of "non-Slovene Western South Slavic". This would mean that the Slovene language is its own category. Who would categorize it that way? Making a category for only one language?! Science has progressed, and no longer describes the language as "jugoslavjansko narječje" which would contain one called "slovensko-hrvatsko".

Ethnologue is used in the article, but partially, this is not acceptable. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=374-16 - Western South Slavic is not divided into two "subgroups" (two "macrolanguages").

If our learned friends would explain why the Slovene language should be separated? Maybe some dialectology would answer that? If the Slovene language can be considered one "macrolanguage" of Slovene dialects, then the Slovene language is a diasystem. Then, most surely, the Croatian language is a language based on three dialects (there are even more than three, that is also a product of "categorization"), thus a diasystem of its own.

Where ever I looked, the basic purpose is to count languages and describe them properly. Serbian is not based on the same dialect basis as other Western South Slavic languages.

The "problem" is much discontinued, and we cannot link jugoslavjansko narječje with the artificial language produced in 1954/1960 (which was never before made with such "substance" - e.g. with such mixture of words). -- Ali Pasha (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:OWN

kwami, you do not own the articles Croatian language and Serbo-Croatian language. The references in Croatian Language as per the talk page (ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ ) should be removed as Serbo-Croatian is not in part of the branch to the Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian is listed as a macrolanguage. The references to ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ will be removed. The only one left will be the one supporting the argument for Serbo-Croatian. If this is reverted, then your are engaging in Misplaced Pages:OWN and promoting something that ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ do not support. Have a nice day. Vodomar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Please read WP:Dick. I have no problem with you improving the refs, only with you deleting factual information you don't like. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The one who really needs to be educated in not being a WP:Dick is yourself talk. Vodomar (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An accusation of owning the article is an assumption of bad faith, generally considered impolite. Whether one needs to read WP:DICK or not, insulting the person you should be trying to convince won't get you anywhere. — Ƶ§œš¹ 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no assumption of bad faith, when the evidence is plentiful. Vodomar (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is: !RR protection of the article, the constant reversions by Kwamikagami, considering other people's references as inferior even if in the vast majorirty of artiles the references are used. Disregarding other peoples opinion, and placing more value on his own then others. Look at the revision history and look at the chat history for this article, the tone the mannor.... The article can not be a one man's vission of the truth. Vodomar (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You were editing in good faith, for a while. Until you didn't get what you wanted. But acting in good faith is still the best way to get there. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Vodomar. Kwamikagami is behaving in a dicatatorial manner, inventing consensus where it does not exist. He is using a language of hate and intimidation against other contributors that do not share his views. This isn't the only article where Kwamikagami has shown intolerance. He assumed "a consensus" for instance in the case of the article Croatian grammar. Kwamikagami with his actions: placing articles under special protection, 1RR, constant reversions is in essence an abuse of administrator priviledges. --Roberta F. (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If I've done anything inappropriate, take it to WP:ANI. I'd be curious as to what it is. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you don't have the basic knowledge about this topic. Your edit on Commons shows that . This is assuming bad faith. That map is like Brozović's and Šimunović's work about that topic. Distribution of dialects before migrations. Kubura (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The preponderence of the evidence supports the use of Serbo-Croatian as the name of the language that is non-Slovenian Western South Slavic. We have presented it to you in abundance over and over and over again, but you refuse to accept the scientific evidence because it does not match your nationalistic POVs, Vodomar, Roberta F., and Kubura. You have zero evidence to say that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are not national variants of a single dialect of a single language that is called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. You have completely misread Crystal and misinterpreted it through your own blinders. We have provided multiple scientific, linguistic reliable sources to prove it to you, but you refuse to acknowledge any of them. Indeed, you rely solely on Ethnologue and Crystal in opposition to the many, many sources that we have cited showing Serbo-Croatian as the cover term for the single language that we're discussing here. This article isn't owned by anyone, but you Croatians seek to WP:OWN it by continually reverting the accurate scientific text to your own nationalistic skewed version of reality. Vodomar, Roberta K., Kubura, meet the pot. --Taivo (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Many, many sources" that have taken which materials as source? Taivo, start to behave nicer. You're denigrating the opponents (with "nationalistic"); that's violating of WP:ETIQ and WP:ATTACK. Also, Taivo, stop hounding me. Read WP:HOUND. Whenever and wherever I appear, you appear right after me. Especially you have a history of violation of WP:TALKNO, impersonating me. Have in mind that you also have your own personal POV that you're trying to impose here. Kubura (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on Kwami. I edit in good faith, I will always go with a good argument if it is substantiated well. There are differing opinions on this subject and they should be taken into consideration. What is the problem with going with ethnologue's definition of the language. It does not make the article any worse. Yes the Serbo-Croatian can be mentioned in the article and it did have an influence on the language, but it is not a defining one. There were many arguments raised about this through the talk pages of this article, if we are here to build consensus lets build it and not be destructive. Vodomar (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You still don't understand the nature of the Ethnologue source, Vodomar. Ethnologue's editors are not specialists, they are generalists and the majority of them are Uto-Aztecan, Mayan, Arawakan, Cariban, Papuan or Austronesian specialists just pushing paper to maintain the sections on languages that they don't specialize in. Someone wrote to them and complained about "Serbo-Croatian" and without really taking a survey of the literature, they basically said, "OK", made up the term "macrolanguage" for Serbo-Croatian, and Voila!--problem solved :p All the Slavic specialists place Croatian firmly as a part of Serbo-Croatian. Crystal is also not a specialist. The Slavicists all use "Serbo-Croatian" as a node of Western South Slavic. We've provided you with multiple sources showing this. Ethnologue is useful as a fall-back position if there is not specialist literature. But in the presence of specialist literature, then we pass on using Ethnologue. This is the general practice in language articles throughout Misplaced Pages. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Clap trap !!! Wow now you are claiming nationlaism and now placing a bunch of users in the pot, great just point the finger on the other side and start claiming some kind of a bias is nothing but an excercise in logical fallacy and ad hominem. Vodomar (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tavio, so Misplaced Pages is the only true source of knowledge and the only source of truth. I can really see where this is going Vodomar (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to accept any scientific linguistic references that don't agree with your POV. Kwami and I have presented multiple reliable references, but you just ignore them and rely solely on two sources written by generalists that partially fit your POV. I don't know what else to call it when you and the others willfully disregard scientific evidence. What do you want to call the blinders that you and Roberta F. and Kubura are wearing? --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Vodomar, the multiple reliable sources that Kwami and I have cited here are the basis of our comments. You just choose to ignore the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Ethnologue is a usefull fallback where is suits you, the same with referencing if it does not agree with your POV this is then disregarded and rubbished. To reach a consensus it is a two way street, not a one way express highway which only drives semitrailers with in your own POV written all over it. Vodomar (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami has shown WP:OWN on other articles too. His possessive behaviour towards the articles resulted as vandalisms, since he was blatantly reverting to his version, e.g. here he impoverished the article about South Slavic languages. He deleted the whole referenced sections. He deleted the line about Kajkavian Ikavians, he deleted the info about New and Old Shtokavian accentuation. His version is full of nonexisting terms (e.g., he deleted "East" from "East Herzegovina" - so which one is that "Herzegovina dialect"?; e.g. he invented "ikavian subdialect of Štokavian"...). Where were his sources for those deletions and where were sources for his inventions (WP:OR) ? Kubura (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, we're wasting our time. These people have no interest in providing sources or improving the article. You can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to listen. I had hopes for Vodomar, but he's stopped trying. Until someone makes an honest effort, we're simply filling the page with clutter. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise ! Vodomar (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Divided opinions =

The best option for the definition of the language is to say that there are differing opinions on this subject. This is in the spirit of wikipedia there is no right and there is no wrong. Vodomar (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is not acceptable, Vodomar. You imply that there is some kind of even split of linguists on the matter. There isn't. The linguistic world is virtually uniform in calling the non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects "Serbo-Croatian". You have no scientifically sound sources to rely on for the English terminology. I consider that change to be 2RR for you today, Vodomar. Please self-revert. --Taivo (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See: Nina Janich, Albrecht Greule, Sprachkulturen in Europa: ein internationales Handbuch pp. 135 , 267, Leopold Auburger, Die kroatische Sprache und der Serbokroatismus, Leopold Auburger, Verbmorphologie der kroatischen Standardsprache. Are some of the references. Vodomar (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• An introduction to language and linguistics, By Ralph W. Fasold, Jeff Connor-Linton, pp 389
• South Slavic Discourse Particles, By Mirjana N. Dedaić, Mirjana Miskovic-lukovic, pp. 14

Vodomar (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Undoing and redoing corpus planning, By Michael G. Clyne, pp 178 - 191.

Vodomar (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar, I've looked at these, and they contradict your stance.

• Janich 2002: Appears to be discussing SC as a state standard, not as Serbian+Croatian, but my German is pathetic, so perhaps I'm misreading it. Please quote something (or say 'line that starts with XXX') if you think I'm missing your point.
• Fasold 2006: Discusses how politics decide which varieties are declared "languages". No-one here has ever said otherwise.
• Dedaić 2010: I don't see how this contradicts the article, but just when the discussion gets started (p. 15, visible for just a second), GoogleBooks stops the preview. We'd need to know what Dedaić actually says.
• Cline 1997: He says, "Serbo-Croatian" was an attempt to give national cohesion to Serbs and Croats ... whose languages were based on the same type of variety. This is SC in the narrow sense, and everyone agrees that it's defunct. Cline is discussing "corpus planning", by which he means state planning of language standards, not at all what we're discussing here. Again, that's about Yugoslav standard SC, not about the abstand (formal) language.

If you'd like to proposed edits specifically supported by those refs, that would work (assuming they're relevant), but as blanket assertions I don't see how they help your argument at all. They don't appear to say anything we haven't already said. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Literature

Here's some literature:

• Miro Kačić (with Ljiljana Šarić; translated by Lelija Sočanac): Croatian and Serbian : delusions and distortions, Novi most, Zagreb, 1997, ISBN 953-6602-00-8
• Stjepan Babić: Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995
• Stjepan Babić: Hrvanja hrvatskoga : hrvatski u koštacu sa srpskim i u klinču s engleskim, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2004, ISBN 953-0-61428-4
• Stjepan Babić, Božidar Finka, Milan Moguš: Hrvatski pravopis, (several editions)
  
• Vladimir Brodnjak: Razlikovni rječnik između hrvatskog i srpskog jezika, Školske novine/Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada, Zagreb, 1992.
• Dalibor Brozović_ Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008. (originally published in 1987., in proceedings Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu), ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0
• (ed. Ante Selak): Taj hrvatski, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1992., ISBN 86-7457-084-4
• Ranko Matasović: Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao (very informative interview)
• Radoslav Katičić: Srpski jezik nije štokavski (very informative interview)
• Radoslav Katičić: Kroatologija obuhvaća kulturu kao cjelinu (very informative interview)
• many interesting articles in scientific magazine Jezik (I'll add them here later)

There's more. Kubura (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, Kubura, it's all Croatian nationalist literature and not neutral in this regard at all. In other words, it's not of any real value to determine what the language is called in English, which is all that matters here. You have no English sources beyond stretching Ethnologue to say what it doesn't. You think that Ethnologue is the best source in the world when it matches your POV, but ignore it and call it unreliable when it doesn't. Let's put it this way, Ethnologue = 1 source versus the dozen or so sources which Kwami and I have provided. So 1 versus 12? Ethnologue is edited by non-Slavicists, while the 12 are written by Slavicists. You are blinded by your POV and unable to see scientific sources. I agree with Kwami, this is pointless. You have no interest in a referenced scientifically-sound encyclopedia. Please return to the Croatian Misplaced Pages where you can be back with your own kind. --Taivo (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's "Croatian nationalist literature"? Why should we dismiss it if it is? — Ƶ§œš¹ 04:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Aeusoes1, is that this is fundamentally a dispute between the Croatian political agenda and linguistic realities. A number of linguists have made that very clear in our reliable sources--that the issue of "Serbo-Croatian" isn't based on linguistics, but on Croatian politics. Since all of the above sources are Croatian, they will reflect the political nature of the issue and not the linguistic nature. They are POV by their very nature and provenance. What we need for Misplaced Pages are NPOV sources, that is, sources that are separate from the political issue and can honestly reflect only the linguistic issues. The advocates of removing "Serbo-Croatian" or any mention of the complete mutual intelligibility of Croatian and Serbian have no reliable NPOV sources that they can point to other than the Croatian nationalist sources. All English language sources are clear that there is a single language that comprises the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects and that the most common English name for that language is "Serbo-Croatian". They are clear that the division of Serbo-Croatian into "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" is artificial and the result of national politics. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you're saying any Croatian-language source must be nationalistic. In addition to the logical problems in this assumption (as well as the unjustified bias it creates), it still doesn't address why nationalistic sources would be problematic. Remember, these sources were offered as representative of that POV, not as corrections or replacements of non-Croatian sources that provide the description that you agree with.

Also, a clarification: we do not need to seek out NPOV sources, we seek out an NPOV presentation of the issue. This can include NPOV sources (which are particularly helpful when they synthesize information) but it may also include POV sources. If we're trying to access the Croatian linguists' POV on the issue (which an NPOV account would do) then looking at such sources is in order.

If it were an issue of linguists disagreeing with a lay public, it would be easy to side with language experts (this is the case with African American Vernacular English), but this is an issue amongst language experts. Dismissing the ones you disagree with because they speak Croatian and therefore must be "caught up in the politics", so far, has not been sufficiently justified to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ 05:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That literature is nationalist in the sense that all of those linguists above nowadays insist that "Serbo-Croatian" did not exist for one reason or another (it seems to range from an extreme view that Serbo-Croatian having never existed in the first place since it was an euphemism for the educated speech of a Serbian-dominated elite to a marginally more nuanced view that Serbo-Croatian strictly speaking didn't exist since the very term is being assumed to denote something constant and uniform. It could not have been this way because of the existence of a Western (~ "Croatian") and Eastern (~ "Serbian") variant) However this is a deliberately literal interpretation of the term since when anyone thinks about it, no language is uniform across its speech community. This ranges from "small" languages such as Slovenian which has anywhere from 20 to 40-odd sub-dialects (depending on the researcher) to pluricentric ones such as English which according to the hyper-literal interpretation shouldn't exist either since it's not uniform given all of is standard varieties (not to mention all of the uncodified dialects within a given speech community). For that matter, if we were to play by this hyper-literal view of identifying languages, then "Croatian" would be nothing more than an illusion because there's no such thing as an uniform language that's used by all people in the relevant speech-community that calls itself "Croatian". With that all said, these same Croats have no problem using "Croatian" as an umbrella term for any person using a certain sub-set of Slavonic languages/dialects of varying mutual intelligibility (be it "Modern Standard Croatian" or any of the sub-dialects of Chakavian, Kaykavian or Shtokavian) within the borders of Croatia or among a speech community that imagines itself to be "Croatian". The hyper-literal interpretation used to deny "Serbo-Croatian" is not applied to deny "Croatian". The reason for this is sociolinguistic, but sociolinguistics has had relatively little bearing in classifying languages nor has it been that useful in finding or describing languages in matters that are not a function of differences in language use as observed among several social classes in a given speech-community.

Most linguists nowadays would discard politicized or culturally-biased interpretations because in the past mixing such approaches with scientific analysis has often been shown to be faulty in the face of rigorous or repeated linguistic analysis. It may be helpful to recall the development of comparative linguistics in Hungary. Hungarians today have been demonstrated to be speaking an Uralic language that is most closely related to Mansi and Khanty which are spoken in northwestern Siberia by small groups of indigenous people. Notwithstanding the linguistic evidence, many Hungarians originally disputed the findings when they were first published in the 18th and 19th centuries because of the association of a part of their culture with that of tribes who were living in Stone-Age like conditions (indeed part of the Hungarian nationalist platform today is that Hungarian is much closer to Turkic or sometimes even Scythian and that the reason why Hungarian is considered to be an Uralic language is because the research was part of an Austrian conspiracy in the 19th century to emphasize the Hungarians' primitiveness by finding similarities between Hungarian and Khanty or Mansi). Instead, most Hungarians (and even some of their linguists) believed that the Hungarians spoke a language akin to that of the Turks or even the Mongols. This belief was based not only on certain demonstrable similarities between Hungarian and some Turko-Mongol languages but also encouraged by emphasizing the cultural association with feared Asiatic horsemen with a glorious military past. If the Hungarian nationalist point of view had prevailed among Hungarian linguistic circles, we could still be facing a disconnect today where Hungarians (helpfully boosted by their linguists' nationally-coloured studies underlining a genetic linguistic link to the languages of Turko-Mongol horsemen) would be presented as speaking a Turkic language while linguists from outside Hungary would consistently challenge their Hungarian colleagues using comparative evidence gathered in field work with people speaking Uralic languages throughout northwestern Siberia and northern Europe. This should be enough to illustrate that politics or populist mass movements don't mix very well with scientific analysis which is more concerned with finding and describing the results. Doing things a priori or trying to arrange facts to conform to a desired conclusion is not what scientists or scholars aim to do.

In any case, this problem is intractable for the time being. All that one can observe is that most Slavicists/linguists who were not trained in the Balkans almost always take the view that Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian are standardized expressions of a pluricentric language called BCMS or SC. However many of these same non-Balkan Slavicists/linguists do make a clear distinction between sociolinguistic and non-sociolinguistic treatment with the latter predominating in the relevant literature. Linguists and Slavicists from the Balkans however are more likely to give pride of place to sociolinguistic considerations (which can be politicized) and so long as this is the way things will be, there will always be a disconnect between the interpretations and findings of most Balkan-trained linguists and their colleagues outside the Balkans. Vput (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting example, but it's a bit apples-oranges as it demonstrates the problems of a lay public rejecting the scientific analyses of language experts (as you say, it was only some of the Hungarian linguists who were part of this rejection). It's also a bit of a non-sequitor because the genetic affiliation between languages/varieties is a lot more concrete (and thereby falsifiable) than the classificatory divisions made. Moreover, the situation we have here is different in that it's nationalism influencing language experts. If we have language experts disagreeing on something that is fairly arbitrary, we can't really dismiss one set of scholars and call it NPOV (which is at issue here).

If I understand you correctly, by saying that sociolinguistics has little bearing on language classification, you mean that social factors don't influence such classification, I'd have to disagree with you. Not only are there many examples of dialect continua that are divided into groups by political borders, but I would argue that classifications may indeed start with a priori assumptions worked backwards into scientific analysis (I offered an example with Southern American English, which is now archived) and still be considered valid. — Ƶ§œš¹ 17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that at the "species" level, at least with languages in nation states, the nodes are as much political as anything. But here we don't have a case of a dialect continuum being divided up the way, for example, Bulgarian-Macedonian is: Serbian and Croatian are the same (sub)dialect. Although there is no objective isogloss one can draw between Macedonian and Bulgarian, at least the prototypes (prestige/standard dialects) of those putative languages are definable linguistically. This isn't possible with Serbian and Croatian because they are not defined geographically but ethnically: two people speaking the same dialect nonetheless speak different languages if they differ in ethnicity, regardless of where they live. — kwami (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Aeusoes1, I don't completely disagree with you on this since sociolinguistics can fit in the mix but the bottom line is that it's at odds with the genetic classification which is less politicized and there is a thrust in reputable scientific endeavour to minimize or eliminate analysis that leads to a conclusion more of political convenience. Basically the sociolinguistically-based division of BCMS/SC into separate languages as B, C, M, S is then taken further to divide Western South Slavonic into 5 branches rather than 2 (i.e. Slovenian and BCMS/SC) (I can even recall someone's comment on the talk page here that Western South Slavonic is divided into 5 languages). When put against comparative linguistic evidence, mixing the sociolinguistic and genetic approach to classification yields different answers (which isn't necessarily "bad" but it does merit a note because language classification uses the genetic approach and we'd have to explain why the majority of (genetically-based) descriptions list only 2 languages while a minority of (sociolinguistically-based) descriptions list 5 languages). Mixing things in this way also implies that Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian together arose separately from some Proto-BCMS which is refutable (at least I've yet to come across any linguist or Slavicist who seriously posits the existence of Proto-BCMS/SC). As we know genetic linguistics recognizes Chakavian, Kaykavian and Shtokavian which in turn likely arose directly from Late Common Slavonic. The notion of Proto-South-Slavonic (i.e. an ancestor common only to Bulgarian, Macedonian, BCMS/SC and Slovenian) is rather tenuous because comparative analysis has not yielded a convincing amount of isoglosses which support the existence of such a Slavonic node that is distinct from both Western and Eastern Slavonic).

On your earlier reaction to Taivo's statement that all sources from Croatian linguists are nationalist, you probably recall from my comments on Ivan Štambuk's talk page that there are Croatian linguists whose views or interpretations are less or not nationally-coloured. What Kubura did was to list sources from Croatian linguists whose conclusions fit (deliberately or not) with the Croatian nationalist contention that SC did not exist. There are relatively few Croatian linguists who challenge the above-mentioned contention. The most vocal example is Snježana Kordić but others such as Ivo Pranjković, Dubravko Škiljan and Damir Kalogjera have been more supportive of the idea of looking at BCMS as a sociolinguistic phenomenon and don't find the idea of separating BCMS into independent languages to be as clear-cut or obvious as people such as Babić, Brozović and Katičić and others have made it seem. As I mentioned earlier Škiljan and Kalogjera contributed essays in English on the matter in the compendium of essays "Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands" edited by Celia Hawkesworth and Ranko Bugarski. As I mentioned earlier it's also noteworthy that the bulk of professional linguistic opposition to SC or a Croatian connection to SC has come from linguists trained in Croatia (not that ALL of them are indeed like this as shown to greater or lesser degrees by Kordić, Pranjković, Škiljan and Kalogjera) while the bulk of linguists trained outside Croatia have never questioned the existence of SC or treated modern Croatian as anything more than a sociolinguistically-defined variant of SC. I think that this is what Taivo was alluding to in that the reasons for this instance of academic disparity depends visibly on national affiliation of the linguist involved or the allowance of nationalist reasoning to inform interpretations. Without considering the effect of Croatian nationalism (or the lack thereof) it'd be difficult to understand why Slavicists from outside the Balkans such as Wayles Browne, Thomas Magner, Robert Greenberg, Celia Hawkesworth, Ronelle Alexander and Janneke Kalsbeek among others would continue to think of Serbo-Croatian as a valid language and also apply it in studies on language without allowing it to be a prime marker of national identity. On the other hand Croatian linguists such as Babić, Brozović, Kačić, Katičić, Basić and Moguš among others in Croatia make no mention of Serbo-Croatian in this linguistic sense but rather as a code-word for "Serbian" thus evoking memories among its Croatian readership of Croatian victimization (real or imagined) at the hands of Serbs. In addition these Croatian linguists make studies on language while allowing it to be a prime marker of national identity (see Marc Greenberg's article). If you are reluctant to see nationalism as being a large problem in this dispute, how else would you explain why among linguists the distribution of conclusions on topics related to the existence of Serbo-Croatian are distributed quite visibly on the participant's national affiliation? Should we assume that non-Balkan scholars are part of some malevolent Serbian plot and that Croatian linguists such as Kordić or Pranjković are effectively committing treason? Vput (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is that if this were truly a linguistic issue, with legitimate NPOV scholars lining up on both sides, then we would be seeing the same debate over the existence of "Serbo-Croatian" occurring on the Serbian language and Bosnian language pages. But we do not. Only the Croatians take offense at having their "language" included in the non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialect complex. That, in and of itself, strongly illustrates the fact that this is not a linguistic issue at all, but a political one. --Taivo (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's some more:
Scuola superiore di interpreti e traduttori - Università di Bologna (Croatian language program 2006-2007).
This can help too. Kubura (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian linguists polemized with opponents (and their arguments) in the books and articles I've mentioned. Kubura (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A political issue

Stjepan Babić wrote in this book (Hrvanja hrvatskoga : hrvatski u koštacu sa srpskim i u klinču s engleskim, 2004, ISBN 953-0-61428-4 ) about the political dimension of this issue on several pages. I'll try to summarize it here. Kubura (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you also summarize what Babić wrote in his 1964 article Uklanjanje hrvatsko–srpskih jezičnih razlika "The removal of Serbo-Croatian language differences" (Jezik 11/3, p 71–77) ? Or in his 2001 book Hrvatska jezikoslovna prenja (an excerpt from page 275: Ja sam uvijek pazio što pišem pa i s obzirom na partijske smjernice. Nikad nisam rekao da partija nema pravo "I always paid attention to write in accordance with the Party's guidelines. I never said that the Party was wrong"). Why only present one side of the equation, now that Babić is an ardent nationalist, and ignore what he said in the past (when he was on the payroll of the Communist party) which is completely at odds with what he is saying now? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan, can you stop using your negative view of the world and painting every Croatian as a nationalist, especially the with the tone you use which borders with the extreme. Couldn't Babić be a patriot ? What would you expect if a person lived in a repressive regime, that he came out now and said what he did. What other choices did he have: exile or jail. Why be a martyr ? You should stop pointing you finger at other people and take a balanced view and look at all the facts. Your constant put downs , mockery and lack of respect are not a solid foundation for argument - action usually brings a similar style reaction from many people. Babić is not on this forum able to defend himself. Please treat everyone with respect, not with contempt ! Vodomar (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Štambuk hasn't properly translated Babić's words.
If text went like this, as Štambuk said, proper translation is:
Ja sam uvijek pazio što pišem pa i s obzirom na partijske smjernice.
Nikad nisam rekao da partija nema pravo
= I was always watching (=being careful) what I was writing, and even with regard to Party's guidelines.
= I never said that Party was wrong.
"pa" isn't ordinary "and" (like "i"). "pa" is more like "and+unexpected/(not likely to happen)/(somehow, surprising) turn of events", "and+unexpectedly even something contrary".
This gives completely other picture: Babić wasn't playing by default according to Party's "music".
Babić he said that he was very careful when writing the texts, in order to avoid Party's anger pointed against him and all possible repercussions.
In short - Babić watched his mouth. He sometimes wrote according to Party's guidelines, if it wasn't against his personal attitudes. S rogatim se ne bodeš.
If he wanted his work to be published, and if he wanted to avoid any "disappearing" (including all his previous scientific work), as it happened to regime's opponents (remember Stalin's colleagues that disappeared from older photos!) and all yugoregime's unwanted scientists' works.
Have in mind that these were 1960's, before the Declaration and any easing of oppression. Ranković's spirit was still in the air. Kubura (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Štambuk, please, don't try to distract us from the topic here. Things are heated here, were trying to WP:COOL things down.
I'm trying to present us here the Babić's attitudes about the political dimension issue of this linguistic problem, but you're distracting us with Babić's alleged political attitudes (with mistranslations!) and congesting the talkspace with etiquetting WP:ETIQ the opponent's source.
Read WP:TROLL. "The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and citations or to accept WP:CONSENSUS or compromise.".
Or this troll (Internet): "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.".
Please, don't disrupt. Kubura (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

@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,

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".

(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)

Reference in edit summary

Kwamikagami, references must be given in the text, not in the edit summary . 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)

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

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• Top-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles