Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mir Harven (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 25 April 2010 (→"Serbo-Croatian" confusions revisited). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Index 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

Croatian and Slovene

Hi. It would also be very interesting that someone add perhaps pretty close connection between Croatian dialect from Zagorje and Slovene language. I shall add this obvious connection (but I am not a Slavist, neither Slovenist or Croatianist (is this the right term?)) to the article about Slovene language. As it is written in this article that Croatian is the Central-South Slavic diasystem. Interesting, because (at my opinion) we can't speak about any diasystem in Slovene language - so the language itself is somehow unique among the Slavic languages (just do not ask me to reveal my own theory about the language...!), and specially among the languages of the former Yugoslavia. (I also know too little about Macedonian-Bulgarian connections). I just see tiny outlines of this diasystem between Slovene and Zagorje dialect. And no other at all.

The dialects of Croatian from the north morph quite a lot. People from Burgenland use many words that resemble Slovenian words, but their accent is more like the Austrian German. People from Međimurje use so many umlauts in their accent, so to speak, that I can more easily distinguish words from standard Slovenian than from them. The accent of Zagorje is sort of like morphing of what they speak in Međimurje to what they speak in the south-central Croatia. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's all mucho simpler, as the text on the following link enunciates-http://www.i-depth.com/P/e/ez00831.frm.music.msg/2811.htmlMir Harven 20:08, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little bit different picture from your point of view than mine. But can you really distinguish words from sS...? We who have lived in former Yugoslavia are perhaps privileged against the youngster ones, because in fact we understood the foreign language. My daughter does not understand neither Croatian, neither Serbian or even Bosnian language. "Bolan, stvarno ne." For one foreigner the knowledge of Serbo-Croatian is just like the knowledge of English, German, Russian, French or other language. We were able to communicate with Serbs/Croats/Bosnians, because we were able to speak S-C. But in the future the young ones won't be able anymore. I know that nobody won't learn Slovene, but Slovene youngsters won't learn C-S-B either. We were somehow forced to learn, which is not bad. On the contrary. Because Slovenia market is so small, we can also absorb other medias (books, journals, films, TV programmes, ... and God help us - not idiocies of any kind)

Well, I am a Croat who was never taught Slovene in school, was only minimaly exposed to it on TV, and never lived in Zagorje (that is, near Slovenian border), but I have little difficulties understanding it (of course, I can't speak it). For example, I once found myself on assignment for an UN agency in Vietnam, with a fellow expert from Slovenia. After he struggled for a day or two with something resembling Croatian that he learned in school, we agreed that each would speak his own language and we understood each other very well (granted, for finer technical points we did switch to English occasionally). --bonzi 08:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, where to draw the line, that's obviously a hard question which doesn't have a single answer. The most common distinction is that Slovenian and the Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian group are different but on the same horizontal line. Thus, the diasystem thing is used to explain the bipolar nature of the standard languages in the C-B-S group, not the link between the dialects in Slovenia and northern Croatia. --Shallot 17:3

0, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

They say that theoretically the closest language to Slovene is Bulgarian. I know to little to confirm this. In my opinion is the Russian language and not Croatian or Serbian, which might in fact be the closest ones. In a historical view of the last 20th century at least. Perhaps typical representative of this was here belittled Josip Broz Tito himself (- hey guys, he was the leader of anti-Nazism forces during WW2, so watch a bit for your words... - he wasn't just a communist authoritarian leader and dictator - you can speak now whatever you want, after his death yeah, but you can show some respect too ...), because his father was Croat, mother Slovene and he was born in Kumrovec, which is, as we all know in Zagorje. And some say that he spoke badly Croatian or Serbo-Croatian. (Ups, I didn't read the debate above first, so this might fall out of the context. And BTW in Slovene we say factory "tovarna" and also German "fabrika" in colloquial language, heh, he.) And also - Yugoslav Encyclopedia (general and of Yugoslavia) was printed in Slovene too. Slovenes never protested that the Lexicographical institute was stationed in Zagreb. But I can't agree with the sentence: Second- only Croatia, among all Yugoslav republics, had a vital lexicographical tradition. As I know Encyclopedia of Slovenia (Enciklopedija Slovenije) is already out with all of its volumes. So, from where this edition did come from? I guess from nothing. Zero, zippo, zilch, nicego.

I think that comment from Mir Harven was aimed at the southeast rather than the northwest :) He likely overgeneralized when talking about all of Yugoslavia. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep. When you turn the Earth upside down, southeast becomes northwest, or am I wrong...

Another indication that Slovene language was never diasystem or multisystem is that Croats or Serbs badly understood Slovene, while most Slovenes did understand Serbo-Croatian well.

Again, I don't think you should interpret the diasystem reference to include all south Slavic languages in Yugoslavia, just the controversial west-central group. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes Shallot I understand the meaning of a diasystem in this context. I am not pushing a term diasystem in this C-B-S group context. Think from my point of view as a Slovene. I was just asking which language (or even a dialect) is the closest one to Slovene. As I know and hear, the Craotian Zagorje dialect sounds so. I do not want to harness much of grammatical science inhere. I think the sentence "Kaj si rekel?" sound identically in both (in Slovene and in Zagorje dialect). These king of diasystems came widely after 1990s, specially C-B-S and C-S groups, latter meaning Czech-Slovak. At least for foreigners. And for us as former citizens of Yugoslavia C-B-S group, since we can't speak any of separate language, just Serbo-Croatian. Before 1990 I didn't know that Czech and Slovak are also so different and have different histories too.

Not perfect of course, but better that them their language. So Slovenes always spoke with Serbs or Croats in bad Serbo-Croatian - which is in fact not fair. Even today this is so. Hate, hate all around. Poles do not want to speak Russian, Croats do not want to speak Serbian, Serbs do not want to hear about Croatian and on and on. And finally - you're blaming Tito in such an extent. While he was still alive there was at least PEACE in Yugoslavia. You should also consider the situation during the Cold War in Europe not just in former Yugoslavia itself. Only 10 years after his death this terrible inhumanity happened. Where did so praised "bratsvo i jedinstvo" ("brotherhood and unity") go?. Kak' si rekel, tak sem čul. Nikak nebu, a da nekak nebu. I nikad i ni bilo, da nekak ni bilo...

Note that the silly comments about Tito came from the Serbs -- I for one fail to see such a large extent of Tito's influence on the linguistic problem that has existed since half a century before he was even born. I left that statement there so that I couldn't be accused of censoring, but one of these days I'll have to do some cleanup. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I never knew that Tito was really speaking so bad (Serbo-Croatian). "Ako bude trebalo, ...", - sounds familiar?

And on the end one fact from one Slovene internet forum when one Slovene said: I guess the only war I shall see in my whole life in the future will be the War between Slovenia and Croatia. I think these sad words say enough. All who have cooked the mess in former Yugoslavia will get their own appropriate judgement, I won't judge noone. They always got it. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 05:57, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't take everything you read on the Internet so seriously. Fact is, most people are idiots :) --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Perhaps I am big idiot enough to belive such idiots. But as we know they are also always dangerous.

On a more general note, I have been told that the Slovenian language was formed by taking different things from different dialects that the Slovenian people spoke, and standardizing on that compromise. On the other hand, the standardization of the dialects that the Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin and whatever other people spoke happened in a sort of a heavyhanded manner which set aside all dialects other than a handful of types of štokavian (ikavian &#353tokavian was left out, for example). Since the Croats generally seem to speak a more diverse group of dialects than the Serbs, it could be expected that they would eventually be the ones to find themselves unhappy with the result as they found many their local dialects fade away in favor of some largely imported standard. Mix in a large number of unfavourable circumstances, a lot of politics, and there's your neverending conflict. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Slovenist Jože Toporišič recently said that Slovene literary language was formed in the Central part of Slovenia and not perhaps in Transmuraland. But it also might come from Prekmurje - why not? Or from Carinthia, where Slovene originates. Perhaps is the same thing as in C-B-S gruop but not in such an extent and to harm any dialect, since there were never revolts from other parts of Slovenia. For instance the Primorje region which borders to Italy, was always tightly connected with the mainland - even during two WWs, when this region was sold to Italy by American president Wilson (sort of speaking) and was governed by Italian fascists.

I tako...ode drug Tito. A nije uspio svladati ni "Srpski bukvar za početnike-az, buki, vedi.."Mir Harven 19:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I nikad se ne vratih... (Probably wrongly written in Serbian aorist) --XJamRastafire 00:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The language / dialect that is spoken in Zagorje and Medimurje is without a doubt a transition between Slovenian and Croatian - it has been this way for centuries, since it was rather multiethnic area. The standardisation of Slovenian and Croatian (to a much bigger extent - stokavian was based as the model), is helping destroy this rather interesting dialect. what a shame!

and for the person, that wrote that without the influence of "serbo-croatian" media and/or education of the language would not be able to understand it. complete bollocks! sure there are bigger differences with serbian (thanks to thousands of turkish words), but one can still understand it - even if not very well.

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

croatian / serbo-croatian

As a kid I spoke Serbo-Croation. Now I speak Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, soon I'll speak Montenegrin. Get over it people it is the same language written in two different scripts. Saying Serbian and Croation are two different languages is like telling someone from New York City someone in London speaks a different language. A couple of words here and there and a different accent do not make a seperate language.

hmm do both croatian and servo-croatian really need a seperate place? it seems to me that both are actually the same language with the same history and stuff and only now for political reasons not being considered the same. also now the info that should be the same in both articles (history or the facts sheet for example) that should be excactly the same will not be.

Can't Croatian language be put under "the name controversy" and/or "dialects" at Serbo-Croatian language or could we make a shared 'history' section? --62.251.90.73 21:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. Try reading the history -- you'll notice that it's rather apparently different. It'll also help you to see why the "they're the same language" argument is rather pointless.

Also, it's spelled "Croatian", "Serbo-Croatian", "separate", "exactly". I've seen the term "Serv" used as an ethnic slur for the Serbs so I'd particularly advise against making such mistakes. --Shallot 22:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shut up, Chetnik. They're the same language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.255.6 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

It is one of the standard versions of the Central-South Slavic diasystem, formerly (and still frequently) called Serbo-Croatian. well i guess then the article has quite a bad and confusing start.

Why is it confusing? It is not untrue that it belongs to the said group, and the linked page explains things like grammar, things that are common to all the standard variants such as this one. We keep the common content on that page, and the variant-specific content on variant-specific pages. This has fairly obvious historical and practical reasons. --Shallot

also the numbers on the facts page are the same and i hardly think that's a coincidence

I assume the numbers you are referring to are those for the number of speakers. Yes, the number in parenthesis refers to all the other intelligible variants as well as this one so it is the same, it has to be. The number outside the parenthesis refers to this variant only, and that one is smaller. --Shallot

and don't whine about my spelling, especially correcting me not using a capital on 'croatian' is so lame... if i would care about my spelling on this talk page i would get a dic. Also i spelled both Croatian and Serbo-Croatian the good way somewhere in my comment as well so correcting me like i don't know any better is just stupid, now stfu lamer. --62.251.90.73 22:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's rather amusing to see someone post pretty silly comments without having done any research, make glaring spelling errors that also happen to be offensive, and expect not to get corrected for doing that. Do us all a favor and spend more time reading the fine articles, and less insulting people. --Shallot

Not capitalising words for one, is not a spelling error. And that i make spellings errors, as a not native English speaker, has i no way anything to do with the speakers intelligence or the validness of his message. Maybe Einstein made a lot of 'glaring spelling errors' as well when he started to speak English, did that made him less intelligent? When you're trying to speak French or Russian, you won't do so well, would you? would that make you a stupid person? Further more this is just a discussion page, in which all is well as long as people understand what I'm saying, and they obviously do. Which makes my spelling totally irrelevant. I saw discussion pages with comments in a mix of russian and english and still those people were not flamed for their spelling.

Commenting on my question, which is not a flame, it's just a question, a question rose to me by reading the article. So a question that can also arrise to other people, wether it is valid or not. And I don't think the question is that strange, since this norish linguist also answered and researched this, and he wouldn't have done that, if it wasn't a question in this first place.

And thanks to Mir Harven i know better now. While you only wasted everyone's time with your lame flame.

Also if you as a serb feel offended because some guy on some internet discussion misspelles serb as 'serv' because in his native language serbian would be written servisch, you deserve to feel offended. Because apparantly, you are unable to relevate an internet discussion or read things in context.--62.251.90.73 11:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You got offended at a rather straightforward correction, insulted me, imagined my nationality (wrongly), all in a nice little rant. Thanks for your valuable contribution, I'm not sure what we'd do with out it :P What the other user pasted below is just another merely subtly different reiteration of the same things that were already written in the articles and in the talk pages. --Shallot 15:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For those conversant with Croatian-http://main.amu.edu.pl/~sipkadan/PRIK10B1.HTM "Na prvom mjestu (odmah iza Predgovora i Pozdravnih riječi) nalazi se rad norveškog jugoslaviste i jednog od organizatora skupa Sveina Mönneslanda, pod naslovom Sociolingvistička situacija deset godina poslije raspada Jugoslavije.

“Deset godina nakon raspada Jugoslavije i šest godina nakon Daytona” - kaže Mönnesland - “vrijeme je da se trezveno razmotri sociolingvistička situacija na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Polazne tačke tog razmatranja bi mogle biti u dvije naoko oprečne konstatacije: 1) Bošnjake, Crnogorce, Hrvate i Srbe spaja zajednički jezik (a jezik je i ono najvažnije što ih spaja), i 2) Unutar zajedničkog jezika postoje različiti standardni jezici pojedinih nacija (17).”

Prihvatajući Brozovićev termin, Mönnesland dalje poredi “skandinavsko i srednjojužnoslavensko jezično područje”, nalazeći neke sličnosti u tome što je “i unutar skandinavskog kao i srednjojužnoslavenskog jezičnog područja broj standardnih jezika... varirao tijekom vremena” (ib.), a glavna pokretačka snaga koja je dovela do pojave novih standardnih jezika “bio je nacilonalizam, ne u negativnom smislu, već kao snaga koja je težila afirmaciji nacionalne kulture u procesu izgradnje nacije” (18). To je u skladu s idejom: jedna nacija - jedan jezik, “koja potječe iz vremena romantizma, onako kako se to odvijalo u srednjoj i istočnoj Evropi” (ib.). Po tome bi “svi Hrvati i svi Srbi van Hrvatske odnosno Srbije... trebali imati... potpuno isti standard kao u matičnim zemljama”, uz insistiranje na nacionalnom imenu jezika, što postaje značajnije od sličnosti supstancije, pa tako u Bosni i Hercegovini funkcioniraju tri standarda s tri različita naziva: srpski (u Republici Srpskoj), hrvatski (na područjima pod hrvatskom upravom) i bosanski ili bošnjački, što je još sporno (na ostalim područjima BiH)." In short: Norwegian linguist Monnesland speaks that Croatian,Serbian and Bosniak are ONE, CENTRAL SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUGE in the same vein Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are ONE, SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGE. Since no one uses the term SCANDINAVIAN, it is evident that SERBO-CROATIAN, and its less offensive successor term, CENTRAL SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUGE, are just remnants of political linguistics. Serbo-Croatian will have disappeared from history, completely. Just, old habits, geopolitical plans and other mundane motives keep the fossil name still in the game. Until it's history, the less offensive and less politically prostituted term, Central South Slavic diasystem, should be used. Temporarily. Mir Harven 10:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mir, i guess that explains it, thank you. --62.251.90.73 11:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I find the reasoning and sources for this diasystem thing. But I hope we all agree that "a scandinavian linguist says" isn't enough. Plus, if it's true for scandinavian languages that have been separate standards for hundreds of years, it isn't neceserally true for BCMSxyz which had a common media space just 15 years ago (and to an extent still has). Zocky 16:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I read the above once more. MH, are you sure you're reading it right? "skandinavsko jezično područje" doesn't necessarily mean there's a single scandinavian language. It means the area covered by the Skandinavian language or languages. Plus, what Brozović says means that Serbs and Croats speak the same language with differet standard languages within it. And Mönnesland continues to say that "the number of standard languages has changed over time both within the Skandinavian and within Central-South Slavic language area." He then goes on to describe how appearance of these new standards is driven by the forces of positive nationalism.

But the processes that he's talking about took place in the formerly common Skandinavian tongue (probably no more varied than the whole Kajkavian/Štokavian/Čakavian/Torlak spectre) centuries or at least decades ago. I appreciate that the same process of divergence could happen with Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, but I can think of at least three reasons why it's not likely: (1) all standards are based on the same dialect, (2) there is an available large body of literature in all of the standards, which tends to stabilize the language standards (3) there is no isolation of speakers, especially not from media in other standard languages.

All I'm saying is, the Skandinavian languages example may not apply very well. Zocky 16:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• technically, yes, serbian and croatian are the same language. they are mutually intelligible, but that doesn't mean it's the same. ::these two languages are separated by some really minor grammatical rules and about 17 000 words. but what's most important, these languages have a different and vast literature and culture to it. it's the same problem with swedish, norwegian and danish, but i've never seen people fighting about those three.

THAT's nonsense! You cannot compare 'serbian' and 'croatian' with swedish, norvegian and danish, because those 3 languages are different enough to be considered as separate languaguages. That is not case with the serbian, croatian, bosnian, montenegrin and bunjevac dialects of SERBOCROATIAN LANGUAGE, because they are just dialects of ONE LANGUAGE, called SERBOCROATIAN or today: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbaian. Please respect the facts that are respected by all normal scientific factors in the world and most importantly- The European Union and all its bodies. 62.162.62.189 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatian is just a dialect of Serbian and vice versa. The "Croatian language" is not different enough to be considered separate. Both Serbian and Croatian come from Slavonic and both used Cyrillic for the majority of their existence. Now either language can be written in Cyrillic or Latinic although for nationalistic or educational reasons Croats refuse to write in Cyrillic. People are now even talking about a Bosnian language, which is basically Serbian dialect written in Latinics, and a Montenegrin language, which is Croatian dialect with some extra accents. This is retarded at best, the language is the same, it is simply called differently in different Yugoslav states because of ethnic tensions. Go look at Demographics of SFR Yugoslavia to get an idea of where different dialects are used, but as far as I'm concerned the language we are all talking about is Yugoslav. Screw all you racists trying to rewrite history. Zalgo (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.221.124 (talk)

I see some Serbs failed history class... First, the Cyrillic script was used in Croatia only during Yugoslavia. Second, Ukrainian and Russian are also very similar, but they are not the same language. Third, according to the comments, it seems that Serbs still dream about Greater Serbia, and believe in fictional truth that all people from Southeastern Europe are actually Serbs. Talking about racism and fascism...(rolleyes). Misplaced Pages will not accept fictional truths from Serbian radicals, it will only accept the facts. Thank you. Again, (now for real), screw all you fascist trying to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite 99.236.221.124 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright

Suspicion of copyright infringement to http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/croatian_language.html .

Since I'm one of the owners of the site http://www.hercegbosna.org , I'm free to use the material from this site. If someone has dubieties- email info@hercegbosna.org. Anyway-I'm a bit puzzled, since this issue had been discussed ca. 5-7 months ago and I thought it was a resolved "problem". I guess it's somewhere on this page, or on my Talk page. In any other case- email info@hercegbosna.org . Mir Harven 17:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the issued resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Croatian_language/Archive#Copyright Mir Harven 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please tell the likes of Shallot to not talk about things they dont know about. And to watch making spelling mistakes which could be mistaken as slurs.~~

categorization in the taxobox

This article argues that Croatian doesn't come below Serbo-Croatian in the categorization. The article Serbo-Croatian language does. Please let's just keep things separated as they are and avoid casting judgement from one article into the other. --Joy 11:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how to handle this thing, but I would just like to mention that having contradicting articles at Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Croatian is probably not a good thing. Zocky 13:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are not contradicting, at least not any more contradicting than e.g. articles on different religions :) Some interpret things one way, some another. All articles make note of both interpretations and link to the other articles, but we have them all to avoid being partial to one interpretation only. It's pretty tidy compared to how it could look AFAIACS... --Joy 13:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every foreign linguist agree that Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian r standard forms of one unic Serbo-Croatian language.

That is not actually true, because there are various theories in dialectology that differ in explanations. --Joy 14:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that theur opinion counts more because we cannot say that they are partial.That we cannot say for experts from mentioned countries. U say that u have a lot of agruments that contradict my stands.Belive me for every agrument of your I have at least 3 anti-arguments.And another prove that it is one language:in areas where Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks live they all speak same dialect of Serbo-Croatian. My final:SERBIAN,CROATIAN and BOSNIAN R STANDARD FORMS OF SERBO-CROATIAN LANGUAGE. User:Jugoslaven

The taxobox row we're arguing about says "genetic classification", and links to language families and languages, which in turn explains how language families are based on its members deriving from a common ancestor. "Serbo-Croatian" is not a current name for this language I'm speaking, and the same language is not merely a phylogenetic child of Serbo-Croatian, it's also much more a child of older forms of dialects that predate S-C. This is a valid argument even if one ignores the plea against use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" because it's inherently biased towards the first listed origin and the two origins listed at all. --Joy 18:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article South Slavic languages cites Croatian as subcategory of Serbo-Croatian:

Serbo-Croatian (ca. 17 million)

Bosnian (ca. 2 million) 
Croatian (ca. 5 million) 
Serbian (ca. 10 million) 

So we can categorize Croatian in taxbox as Subcategory of Serbo-Croatian or bold Croatian in word Serbo-Croatian so that others know that it is about Croatian standard of Serbo-Croatian. User:Jugoslaven

Um, I don't see how that overrides what I said. That article is accommodating both interpretations -- that it's all together, and that it's separate. That doesn't imply that this article has to do the same in its taxobox. --Joy

I don't really mind the low-key revert war over this, although it would be much more sensible to discuss it here first before changing it in the article again. What I do mind is people calling those with a different opinion vandals. That's just counterproductive, plus see wikipedia:No personal attacks. Zocky 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, you'd really have to talk to Jugoslaven, because he incited the latest round of controversy and continues to inflict it upon us all. --Joy 23:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will remind that Jugoslaven is still persistently adding "Serbo-" in this article's taxobox with little apparent rationale. I suppose it's a good way as any to pump up one's edit count... --Joy 23:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Related discussion at another Talk page

Interesting discussion about the history of the Croatian language appeared at Image_talk:Cpw10ct.gif. Feel free to check it out.

Serbo-Croatian Misplaced Pages

"A good example is the wikipedia project, with non-existent «Serbo-Croatian» wikipedia (on a more formal level, such an enterprise is not linguistically possible since any text would be easily recognized as either Croatian or Serbian, with Bosnian somewhere in the middle)."

I don't think this is a good example at all. It is also possible to recognise English as American, Australian, British or variants somewhere in the middle, but an English Misplaced Pages is possible (it exists, in fact). Shouldn't we remove this passage?

I just found out that Serbo-Croatian wikipedia does exist: http://sh.wikipedia.org so I'm removing the above passage as POV

Serbo-Croatian..

There is no language called Serbo-Croatian. They are not completely different, but they are not the same either. Also, its not only the fact that they are different languages, the cultures are different as well. Therefor one can not combine the two.

What nonsence! :))) HolyRomanEmperor 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SERBOCROATIAN LANGUAGE ALWAYS EXISTED AND WILL EXIST, AND ALL THE MORONS WHO IGNORE THAT FACT AND WRITE NONSENCE (LIKE THE ONE ABOVE) SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR TRASH! TRULY!:)) Look there is no practical difirence betveen serbian and croatian language.What you are claim you claim from nationalistic reasons.Lord feanor 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Lord Serb, you really need to calm down and accept the facts =) Talking about nationalism, why do you spread fictional truth about Croats on entire Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting on closing down the croatian Misplaced Pages

See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije Hope, many of you will contribute! :) --Neoneo13 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) HA, HA, YOU ASKED FOR CLOSING THE CROATIAN WIKIPEDIA, LET'S ALL OF US DO IT:))

POV-section

Need I elaborate why I added {{tl:POV-section}}? Entire "Unification and separation with Serbian" section is full of assertions about alleged attempts on supremacy of Serbian language, lacking sources and repeating the same thesis over and over. I'm not saying that the tendency and attempts did not exist, but the section exaggerates it beyond reasonable limits. Should I go point by point?

• In the 1920s and 1930s, the lexical, syntactical, orthographical and morphological characteristics of Serbian were officially prescribed for Croatian textbooks and general communication.

Sources? Having read few Croatian texts from the time, I can say they the Croatian idiom in them is pretty distinguishable.

• Under monarchist Yugoslavia, "Serbo-Croatian" unification was motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy.

Uh-oh.

• In Communist Yugoslavia, Serbian language and terminology were "official" in a few areas: the military, diplomacy, Federal Yugoslav institutions (various institutes and research centres), state media, and jurisprudence at the federal level.

Uh-oh.

• — everything had, in practice, been geared towards the supremacy of the Serbian language

No comment.

• The single most important effort by ruling Yugoslav Communist elites to erase the "differences" between Croatian and Serbian — and in practice impose Serbian Ekavian language, written in Latin script, as the "official" language of Yugoslavia — was the so-called "Novi Sad Agreement".

I've never heard a rumor, and hardly an evidence, that those pretty renowned people had their arms twisted to sign it.

• The "Agreement" was seen by the Croats as a defeat for the Croatian cultural heritage. According to the eminent Croatian linguist Ljudevit Jonke, it was imposed on the Croats.

All Croats? At least it has a source, i.e. mentions one.

• These works, based on modern fields and theories (structuralist linguistics and phonology, comparative-historical linguistics and lexicology, transformational grammar and areal linguistics) revised or discarded older "language histories", and restored the continuity of the Croatian language by definitely reintegrating and asserting specific Croatian characteristics (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical, etc.) that had been constantly suppressed in both Yugoslavian states and finally gave modern linguistic description and prescription to the Croatian language.

This is an un-encyclopedical praising, suggesting that everything that existed before was rubbish.

• Political ambitions played a key role in the creation of the Serbo-Croatian language.

One can say so, because Illyrian Movement certainly did have political ambitions. I say this because the "Serbo-Croatian language" was basically their idea. Duja 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I throughfuly read the article and I do not see what in it exactly violates the NPOV policy. All the quotations you listed here are basicly correct and I do not see what is the problem here; you have not made much point in counter-argumenting them ("uh-oh" is hardly a valid argument). I therefore suggest the POV tag be removed. -Hierophant 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And you saw only my "Uh-oh" as the problem? It is maybe not a valid argument, but "motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy", "been geared towards the supremacy of Serbian language", "was seen by the Croats a defeat" "that had been constantly suppressed" are so apparent POVs that I didn't even feel that it deserves a comment. And the entire section barely mentions the opposite views, presenting the perceived oppression as universally accepted truth. I'm returning the tag. Duja 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV, but simple facts. In both Yugoslavias, most Croats felt a considerable pro-Serbian influence being pre-dominant over them, particulary in language issues. The article quite clearly states there were also those schools of opinion who were for unification of two languages, but amongst Croats, these schools of opinion were present mostly in latter half of 19th century, but practicly extinct by 1930s, when it became plainly obvious that the first Yugoslavia was no unification of South Slavic peoples but an imperialistic Serbian monarchy. Ever after and during second Yugoslavia, as the article states, Croats and Croatian language experts indded felt that their language has "been constantly suppressed", that language reforms imposed upon them were "motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy", "been geared towards the supremacy of Serbian language", and "was seen by the Croats a defeat" following the Novi Sad argument of 1954; tha fact that in 1967 a collective declaration of Croatian language experts refuted the argument shows clearly that they were quite unhappy with the idea, and that in 1971 a Croatian grammar published by Croatian language experts was burned by communist autorithies and prohibited to be reprinted shows quite clearly that the Yugoslavian goverment had a very negative issue towards Croatian language. - Hierophant 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that suppression and unification did not exist. I am questioning its perceived amount, motives, and feelings about it as presented in the article. Certainly not all Croats and Croatian linguists felt uneasy with that, and the process was certainly not as strong in all periods of the time (it might have been stronger in 1970s indeed). I own several university textbooxs from Zagreb university from 1980s and I can certainly tell that the language vocabulary is unmistakenly Croatian. I do assert that certain Croatian expressions and terms were suppressed during Communist regime, but I do question the alleged links with Greater Serbian policy during Communist regime. Also, I assert that the process was unforcibly endorsed by at least some Croatian linguists and intellectuals, to start from Ljudevit Gaj, through Milan Rešetar, especially ones from the left wing of political scene. AFAIK Krleža shifted his opinion about the issue in his later age. The strength, popularity and influence of "left-wing/unitarian" and "right-wing/independence" (terms mine, ad hoc) schools certainly varied through the time and political climate. I object to presenting only the views of the latter as the universal truth.Duja 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you just said is more-less the same thing as stated in the article. Gaj lived at the begining of 19th century and Resetar neard the end (Resetar up to mid-20th century) and the article observes there were important Croatian language schools from that time which were for unification with Serbian; but, as stated, they were almost gone by 1930s. The motivation for language supremacy in Kingdom of Yugoslavia was certainly motivated by imperialistic Serbian policy! The article does not state that communist Yugoslavia supression of Croatian was motivated by Greater Serbain policiy also, but rather by its "bratstvo & jedinstvo" program of unification and creation of single, supra-South-Slavic nation, which is also quite true. The article also states that the greatest pressure on Croatian was exerted in 1960s and 1970s, and notes that by 1980s, the pressure was considerably weakened and new texts in Croatian and about Croatian were on their way by that time. So I aks you again, what is the POV problem here?

The strength, popularity and influence of "left-wing/unitarian" and "right-wing/independence" Croatian schools of thought certainly did vary through time and political climate. However, generaly speaking, "unitarian wing" was dominant one during 19th century, when Croatia was under goverment of Austrian-Hungary monarchy, and somewhat romantic and naive idea of unification with other south Slavic nations and languages, notably Serbs, seemed far better than domination of German/Hungarian. However, by the end of first quarter of 20th century and subsequently, when the dream of south-Slavic unification turned into quite frigthening reality, "right wing" with its independece crise became a predominant one by a long-shot; like you say, even Krleza shifted his opinion to a stronger side (something he was, BTW, very good at). Since the article you tagged POV speaks mostly about 20th century (19th century with Gaj and Serbain connection are explained fairly well in previous two sections), it seems quite reasnoble that it should speak mostly about the wing which was predominant at that time, and, furhtermore, explaining why did it became predominant one.--Hierophant 09:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither this article or the discussion about it are by far scientific and neutral. Instead of explaining the linguistic differences and similarities the authors repeat very common political "arguments", actually - opinions, over and over again. A proper comment from a neutral, expert dialectologist would be necessary if this debate (or article) is to become anything but another sad piece of building sand of arising new national identities. --81.96.69.232 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't quite understand the issue of standard language. A standard language is a political creation par excellence & has not much to do with dialectology/areal linguistics as a linguistic discipline. Standardology, a not very well developed discipline of sociolinguistics (as far as I know), deals with the processes of language standardization & stylization. As with the majority of Central-European & Eastern-European languages (and, I suppose, a significant part of South-Asian ones), Croatian was shaped by philologists & writers's interventions galore, irrespectively of the dialectological "raw matter" state- from accentuation to semantics. It's almost impossible to illustrate the matter to a non-speraker, but, I'll try: Croatian morphology and word-formation prefer common Slavic suffix -telj instead of more ordinary South Slavic suffix -lac in numerous words denoting a doer of an action (gledatelj as compared to gledalac- both words meaning a "viewer". The -telj forms predominate in, say, 70-80% cases. This is a result of literary and philological interventions because "-telj words" invariably possess feminine forms (gledateljica- a "vieweress", so to speak, while there is no feminine form in the "gledalac" case). Other "conscious" linguistic interventions have covered the fields of phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics, lexicology,....It would be equivalent to prescibing the- ess ending to get female forms of *all* English "male" or neutral words: "doeress", "speakeress", "driveress", "thinkeress", etc. (so-no "spokesperson" or "chairwoman"/"chairperson" whatever). I'd say this would give a better picture about writers's/linguists's interventions & how they shaped the Croatian language. The wiki text itself is based on notable Croatian linguist Dalibor Brozović's book "Standardni jezik", 1970, his later works and other linguists's (for instance, Radoslav Katičić's) studies. One can get a glimpse at situation by reading Brozović's (unfinished) text at Mir Harven 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite our attempts to the contrary, language is far from scientific and neutral; the political arguments you refer to and their historical context are not only relevant, but crucial to understanding the topic. As for "new" national identities, perhaps you would do well to read the very material you so carelessly dismiss. --AHrvojic 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ustasha did attack serbo-croatian language already in 1971 from london exile.

If any two (one serbian and one croatian) person can fully understand each other while each one is talking in the language he/she learned from his/her mother, then separate serbian and croatian languages do not exist, those are only dialects of the common serbo-croatian language then.

Just like biological races are defined as such that multiplication and production of fertile offsprings must be impossible between any two different races of animals, languages must be fully unintelligible to each other in order to qualify as true autonomic languages. Otherwise they are just dialects and chauvinists and fascists are using them to artifically incite racial hatred in people. It is a matter of fact that the serbian nation liberated the balkan with arms from the nazi rule and therefore serb race has superiorty over the other, seni-slavic nations that supported fascism in WWII, like the ustasha. They were responsible for the 1971 school textbook counter-revolution which Marsall Tito crushed so majestically. 195.70.32.136 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• This kind of talk is a fascist bullshit which should be deleted from wikipedia as soon as it appears. --Hierophant 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, wiki policy is that idiocies remain on talk pages. Mir Harven 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ije je je or ije je ie?

Mir (or anyone else), I'd appreciate if you could expand more on the ije/ie/je debate (and possibly fix my addition on about exactly what is the disagreement). I wanted to move your addition from Montenegrin language:

like Dalibor Brozović, while others like Ivo Škarić dismiss Brozović's arguments

but I don't quite follow who argues what (not that I delved too deeply into the matter), so I expanded somewhat on the debate, but it certainly needs some improvement. Duja 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may offer my two cents. It seems a bit of time has passed and perhaps this is a dead issue, however.. The comments regarding "standardology" are quite valid and significant. With my modest education and experience in Linguistics, I can merely offer "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." Don't remember whose quote it is but it seems to apply here. Also, from what I remember of my college days, the linguistic area roughly corresponding to the Former Yugo can best be described as a continuum. Neighboring villages will understand each other with slight differences but villages further apart will begin to see more differences and so continuing with distance covered. Therefore it is not surprising that villages in Zagorje (near the Slovene border) would display identical or near-identical features with villages accross the political border. Last but not least: Most linguistic study abandoned "prescriptive grammer" fifty years ago opting for "descriptive." It seems to be the decision of the speaker to decide the name of the "language" spoken. The rest seems to be linguists' attempts to attach meaningful labels. Thanks for your attention. Perun1962 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2006:A famous croatian linguist confirmed the unity of serbian and croatian language!

RAZGOVOR Prof. dr. IVO PRANJKOVIĆ, UGLEDNI JEZIKOSLOVAC, SUAUTOR NEDAVNO OBJAVLJENE GRAMATIKE HRVATSKOGA JEZIKA Hrvatski i srpski su jedan jezik VARIJETETI ISTOGA Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku i to treba jasno reći

Here’s the translation of the main title and the introduction article of this interview:

INTERVIEW: PROF.DR. IVO PRANJKOVIC, THE FAMOUS LINGUIST AND CO-AUTHOR OF THE RECENT PUBLISHED, GRAMMAR OF CROATIAN LANGUAGE’.

CROATIAN AND SERBIAN ARE ONE LANGUAGE! VARIETIES OF IT: On a standard level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and now Montenegrin language are just varieties, but from a same language. Therefore, pure linguistically and typologically they are all ONE LANGUAGE and it should be said very clearly!

The rest of the text just confirms what’s in the title and the main article. In spite of all sick nationalists and evil propagators:-SERBOCROATIAN IS ONE LANGUAGE AND WILL STAY ONE FOREVER!CHEERS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Cyrillization

Can the Croatian language can be sometimes Cyrillized? --Blake3522 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• never, croatian uses latin and latin only. sometimes, for historical reasons the glagolitic may be used, but never in document and :the likes. however, a lot of croats can read cyrillic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.88.249 (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Never. An average Croat is irritated by Cyrillics. 99.229.96.231 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Few years ago last person who understand Croatian in Molise died. Today in Molise nobody speaks Croatian --Billy the lid (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

unclear phrase - " If the subject is narrowed out"

What does this phrase mean? It appears high in the article. Can someone who knows the author's intent please rephrase. Coughinink (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tense

From the article:

There are seven tenses, four of which (present, perfect, future I and II) are used in contemporary standard Croatian, with the other three (aorist, imperfect and plusquamperfect) considered stylistically marked and archaic.

This sentence should probably be considered misleading and/or incorrect. The overwhelming majority of modern linguists agree that most languages have two tenses, and that no language (at least, no language with a vectorial tense system, such as all Indo-European languages) has more than three. Theoretically speaking, and based upon the linguist's definition of "vectorial tense", there can only be three tenses. Please see Tense by Bernard Comrie (ISBN 0521281385) and the chapter on tense in Linguistic Semantics by William Frawley (ISBN 0805810757), among many others.

The author(s) must forgive my guesswork, for I know nothing of Croatian; but perhaps the author meant to say that the language has seven distinct classes of verb affixes that indicate various combinations of tense, aspect, and/or modality. Phrasing the sentence along this general arc would give a more syntactic (as opposed to semantic) flavor to the assertion, which in turn would improve its correctness. Or, perhaps it is commonplace in the prescriptive teaching of Croatian to assert that the language has seven tenses (similar tricks are common in the teaching of many languages). Such pedagogical shortcuts should not necessarily be considered valid descriptive frameworks.

Ericbg05 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Plusquamperfect is not stylisticall marked, nor considered archaic.
Aorist has recent years passed through a small revival, thanks to SMS - aorist is shorter than perfect tense, so more text can be made within a single message (there're some works that speak about this). Kubura (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

It's not just a "version" of Central South Slavic dyasystem.. It's an independent language, with its own development.
Further, some Croatian communities outside Croatia and B&H aren't considered as Croat diaspora, but as autochtonous one.
Croatian: inhabitant of Croatia, or Croatian citizen, not necessarily a Croat
Croat: nationality, not necessarily a Croatian citizen nor inhabitant of Croatia.
Y That's the explanation of my edits. Kubura (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone go to the Vuk Karadžić site, some moron wrote that today Croatian is modern Serbian with few changes. Carib canibal (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That, which is written on Vuk Karadzic's page is more or less-the TRUTH. Morons are those who hide and reject it, nobody else. Ante.62.162.62.189 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'sometimes', but 'always', as a fact.

The sentence in the article starting:, It is sometimes classified as belonging to the Central South Slavic diasystem (also referred to as "Serbo-Croatian"). is not totally correct, because the Croatian standard of SerboCroatian Language (or Central South Slavic Diasystem) is NOT belonging SOMETIMES to the Central South Slavic Diasystem, but ALWAYS. It's an equal part of this diasystem, as well as Serbian, Bosnian, Bunjevac or Montenegrin part. Please respect the facts and don't lose the connection with the reality. Thanks;24.86.116.250 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern research indicates that the classification of all Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian (or worse, some add even Torlakian) speeches in some "greater scheme" is completely arbitrary and is not supported by historical linguistics arguments. There was never a period in which all dialects spoken by the ancestors of present-day self-styled Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins exhibited a period of common development, i.e. their common ancestor goes all the way to Proto-Slavic (which makes sense if you look more closely how divergent these dialectal groupings really are). The notion of SC or CSSD as some "collection of dialects" is furthermore nowadays considered as generally politically incorrect, and most books that care enough about it tend to evade anachronistic terms like Serbo-Croatian, Old Russian or Old Bulgarian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not supported either by archeology. According to the archeological evidences from the Slavic graves, there were 2 main groups of the Slavic settlers in the western Balkans. First older group was matterially assimilated with the native Illyrians (the same agriculture tools and other traditions mixed with the native ones etc) - they continued the old local (Illyrian, Celtic,...) traditions without break, while the second group brought some new traditions (new non-native agriculture tools brought from the north east etc...). It seems that first group occupied all Western Balkans in the beginning. The 2nd group came later and penetrated into the central part of the area settled by the first group, completely assimilating their members and influenced them in the same place, so it resulted (archeologically - materially) with the first older group surrounding younger 2nd group in the shape of "U" letter. Archeologically there was some mix zone between 2 groups. Territorry settled by the 2nd group completely corresponds to the Stokavian speakers who brought "vatra" (fire), while the Slavs of the 1st group used "oganj" (fire) - Bulgarians, Croats and Slovenes (Kaikavians, Chakavians),... Traces of this 1st group can still be found in Macedonia and northern Greece, but they were undoubtly influenced later by Stokavians. Croatian Ikavian Scakavians were nothing but the settlers of the mixed zone Chakavian - Stokavian.

Allegged South Slavic language continuum was never proved, the material evidences also give completely another picture. It rose as an idea in the 19th century Pan-Slavism, supported by the communists in the 20th century, at the moment, finally, claimed only by the Yugo-nostalgists. Scientifically it's archaic and out of time. Language continuum among the South Slavs can be traced only within the Proto-Slavic, never South Slavic! Zenanarh (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Samples of Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian - differences between them

We need a section that demonstrates differences between the three "dialects" of Croatian. We could have lets say 10 samples of text in English, Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian to get an understanding of how like/unlike they are. Thanks. I am unfamiliar with the 2 minor dialects but would greatly appreciate seeing their differences. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not real dialects but sort of "collections of dialects" (narječje), and the differences among individual Kajkavian and Čakavian speeches can sometimes be very large (differences among Štokavian speeches were much bigger in pre-Ottoman times 600 years ago than they're today, so modern-day similarities tend to confuse the big picture). Also dialectologists use special signs suited to the phonological system of a particular dialect which laymen reading this article probably doesn't have any knowledge of, so there'll be little value of adding some comparative e.g. Schleicher's fable that can be "deciphered" only be specialists.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Schleicher's fable, here's how it was given in IWoBA in Zagreb 2005:

• Neo-Štokavian (Standard Croatian):

Óvca i kònji

Óvca koja níje ìmala vȕnē vı̏djela je kònje na brijégu. Jèdan je òd njīh vȗkao téška kȍla, drȕgī je nòsio vèliku vrȅću, a trȅćī je nòsio čòvjeka.

Óvca rȅče kònjima: «Sȑce me bòlī glȅdajūći čòvjeka kako jȁšē na kònju».

A kònji rȅkoše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nȃs sȑca bòlē kada vı̏dīmo da čòvjek, gospòdār, rȃdī vȕnu od ovácā i prȁvī òdjeću zá se. I ȍndā óvca nȇmā vı̏še vȕnē.

Čȗvši tō, óvca pȍbježe ȕ polje.

• Old Štokavian (Orubica, Posavina):

Óvca i kònji

Óvca kòjā nî ìmala vȕnē vı̏dla kònje na brîgu. Jèdān od njı̏jū vũkō tȇška kȍla, drȕgī nosı̏jo vȅlikū vrȅću, a trȅćī nosı̏jo čovı̏ka. Óvca kȃza kȍnjima: «Svȅ me bolĩ kad glȅdām kako čòvik na kònju jȁšī».

A kònji kāzȁše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nãs sȑca bolũ kad vı̏dīmo da čòvik, gȁzda, prȁvī vȕnu od ovãc i prȁvī rȍbu zá se od njẽ. I ȍndā ōvcȁ néma vı̏šē vȕnē.

Kad tȏ čȕ ōvcȁ, ȕteče ȕ polje.

• Čakavian (Matulji near Rijeka):

Ovcȁ i konjı̏

Ovcȁ kȃ ni imȅla vȕni vı̏dela je konjı̏ na brȇge. Jedȃn je vȗkal tȇški vȏz, drȕgi je nosîl vȅlu vrȅt'u, a trȅt'i je nosîl čovȅka.

Ovcȁ je reklȁ konjȇn: «Sȑce me bolĩ dok glȅdan čovȅka kako jȁše na konjȅ».

A konjı̏ su reklı̏: «Poslȕšaj, ovcȁ, nȃs sȑca bolẽ kad vı̏dimo da čovȅk, gospodãr dȅla vȕnu od ovãc i dȅla rȍbu zȃ se. I ȍnda ovcȁ nĩma vı̏še vȕni.

Kad je tȏ čȕla, ovcȁ je pobȅgla va pȍje.

• Kajkavian (Marija Bistrica):

õfca i kȍjni

õfca tera nı̃je imȅ̩̏la vȕne vı̏dla je kȍjne na briẽgu. Jȇn od nîh je vlẽ̩ke̩l tẽška kȍla, drȕgi je nȍsil vȅliku vrȅ̩ču, a trẽjti je nȍsil čovȅ̩ka.

õfca je rȇkla kȍjnem: «Sȑce me bolĩ kad vîdim čovȅka kak jȃše na kȍjnu».

A kȍjni su rȇkli: «Poslȕhni, õfca, nȃs sȑca bolĩju kad vîdime da čȍve̩k, gospodãr, dȇ̩la vȕnu ot õfci i dȇ̩la oblȅ̩ku zȃ se. I ȏnda õfca nȇma vı̏še vȕne.

Kad je to čȗla, õfca je pobȇ̩gla f pȍlje.

--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagraph

Aradic-es, would you kindly explain why you keep on returning the section called "Diagraph". Does it look salvageable to you? The author apparently doesn't know how to spell the word, let alone anything about linguistics. So, what does a section explaining how digraphs from English and German are NOT pronounced in Croatian is doing in a remotely serious article. I could certainly "improve" it by adding how e.g. Dutch or Spanish digraphs are NOT pronounced in Croatian, and so ad infinitum. The articles are sometimes best improved by removing the cr... bad stuff. No such user (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all your work is at talk pages and doing nothing uselfull at the article itself. That paragraph is made as an instruction for the English speakers about the difference that exist and it is matter of this article. if you have nothing better to do here... then stay away from the article! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you resort to personal attacks when you don't have anything constructive to say. Well, that's your language, so please continue to be proud for the high professional level and literacy of the article, and defend every letter of it: "In Croatian do exist diagraphs but they are pronounced differently than in English"... LOL. Ah, that does resemble the grammar of "difference that exist and it is matter of this article", so I can guess who is the proud author of said section.

Last time I checked, Croatian digraphs are lj, nj and dž. But I'll follow your advice and go away; I have better things to do indeed. No such user (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I am tyred of conflicts with editors who believe that being native English speaker makes them top-gun encyclopedians.

P.S. you are obviously one of those who "know " perfectly which articles should be deleted, but no idea which articles should be written. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredibly amusing that the person who is lecturing about english grammar is so dire himself. To the author of this section, I have made a few minor changes. I honestly have no idea about linguistics as I'm sure you do, I just changed a bit of word order to make it easier to read for someone who does. 77.100.4.112 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consonants

Could someone please revise the two consonant sections into one, it's a little confusing (and I am not qualified to do it myself!). Thanks! 77.100.4.112 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the h is like h in English is an error. If it's velar as stated in the table, then it is not like in English, where /h/ is glottal , not . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.167.44 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Skaric has said Croatian /h/ is realized as , only before r's it's : hodati (with ), bih (with ), hrt )]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.110.123 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage

Ex13 (sockpuppet of former Suradnik13), as I see you're playing dumb in the comments you keep reverting me, let me inform you of some undisputed inconvenient facts, namely that the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage being recognized by SIL/ISO and assigned ISO 639-3 code hbs.

Since it encompasses Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian individual languages, it must go above them in the hierarchy, underneath the "South Slavic languages" clade.

Also, before you enter berserk mode upon seeing anything that contains the phrase Serbo-Croatian, "embarrassing" for Croatian nationalist bigots, please take time to actually read what you are reverting, as you've also removed the Balto-Slavic node. Perhaps you didn't know, but Balto-Slavic languages constitute genetic node, please study the ] article.

Let me also inform you that macrolanguages are treated within the infobox genetic tree on every Misplaced Pages article. Hence we have e.g.:

• articles on Bokmål and Nynorsk listing the Norwegian macrolanguage in the infobox tree
• articles on Tosk Albanian and Gheg Albanian listing the Albanian macrolanguage in the infobox tree
• article on Egyptian Arabic and Iraqi Arabic listing the Arabic macrolanguage in the infobox tree

Thus, there is absolutely no reason that Serbo-Croatian varieties (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and in-process-fabricating Montenegrin) shouldn't mention the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage as an upper node. B/C/S varieties are furthermore 100 times more similar (e.g. identical phonology, 99% identical grammar, 100% mutual intelligibility) than the abovementioned Arabic and Albanian varieties, which are BTW barely mutually intelligible (often not at all), having vastly differing phonology and inflection.

I can imagine that some Croats such as yourself might feel "offended" by the mention of SC macrolanguage, but it's an ISO standard and we must mention it. Linguistically B/C/S varieties are one language (the Neoštokavian dialect) and it's pointless to diminish the relevance of that fact, or simply ignore it (it's not going away you know). On Croatian wikipadia you do your Balkanic interpretation of the world, this is English Misplaced Pages and we actually care for NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is article about Croatian language not about so called serbo-croatian. If you go on (source that you provided), you will be able to see:

Denotation: See corresponding entry in Ethnologue.

Then, if you go on that page, you will see the following:

Classification Indo-European, Slavic, South, Western

A member of macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian (Serbia).

After that, please press that link, and see the following:

Indo-European (439)

Slavic (18)

South (7)

Western (4)

Croatian (Croatia)

If somebody is playing dumb, that's you. Thnx --Ex13 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please see for Egyptian Arabic and for Iraqi Arabic. --Ex13 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see on the abovementioned link This language is a member of a macrolanguage; see Serbo-Croatian. So what should we pretend, that the SC macrolanguage with its own ISO code does not exist?

Ethnologue is just a particular publication published by a Christian organization SIL International, and is in no way some kind of "ultimate reference". At best, they can be said inconsistent for not including all the macrolangauges into cladistics tree. By looking at their tree for e.g. East Scandinavian languages, I don't see them separating Bokmål/Nynorsk, with some dubious "Danish-Swedish" node. Also, I'd like to know what exactly is "Czech-Slovak ^_^

So basically what I'm trying to say is that Ethnologue is not some kind of ultimate arbiter on the cladistics of world's languages. Misplaced Pages should not strive to blindly follow one particular PoV interpretation, but in a logically coherent manner provide the most NPOV treatment. I might as well argue add that Ethnologue's classification is BS, and that e.g. the tree by world-renown Slavist Alexander M. Schenker in the chapter on Proto-Slavic in a famous "Slavonic languages" monography edited by Comrie & Corbett, which lists only one node for SC, is unimaginably more credible reference, and dismiss Ethnologue altogether ^_^

The point is, that we doubtless have:

• Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage with registered ISO code, containing Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
• All the other macrolanguages on Misplaced Pages, to my knowledge, are treated as nodes in the language infoboxes, in language/dialectal classifications
• Serbo-Croatian national varieties somehow "deserve" the common treatment in the clade, because they're essentially the same language/dialect (Neoštokavian).

So generally, methinks that it would surely be beneficial to the reader if we include it to the tree, not only for the abovelisted linguistic reasons, but as it would enable the user to browse to the SC language article more easily, as well to the article on the other individual standard languages grouped within the SC macrolanguage. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• - Uhm, what is this, the clique from Croatian wikipedia operating in hive-mind mode? :) Ts ts ts. Rest assured that if this becomes edit-warred I'll make a notice on the appropriate noticeboards, so that the admins can get involved, as I have no desire to be blocked for violating 3RR. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• - After this not particularly good-faith (and somewhat ad-hominem) edit, I decided to notify the administrators: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Croatian_language --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ex13 is playing dumb again. Let me repeat what I wrote: the fact that Ethnologue, a printed publication published by a particular Christian organization, does not mention the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage, does not mean that the Serbo-Croatian macrolangauge does not exist, or that it does not deserve mentioning. Every other Misplaced Pages language article mentions macrolanguages in their infobox trees!. You guys are really hopeless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk wrote: You guys are really hopeless. I dislike your tone, and if I see it right, you succeed to omit part of the same source you use. That's not ok for me, as that looks to me as hiding the truth to gain something? Not fair by any account. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly am I suppose to react after I see my edit reverted 4 times without an explanation?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "omit part of the same source you use" ? I used SIL's website for ISO codes listings, and Schenker's chapter on Proto-Slavic. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It would also be very appreciated if you would argument first, and only then remove my sources. As I said, Ethnologue is not an absolute arbiter on genetic classification of languages, as their cladistics has lots of dubious nodes (see above). It's just a printed publication published by certain Christian organization seeking to translate the Bible in as much languages as possible. All the language articles on Misplaced Pages in their infoboxen make a mention of their respective macrolanguages, if they belong to one! There is no reason to omit it here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion whether Serbo-Croatian should be in the list. However, I'd like to add a couple of notes:

• I agree with Ivan that Ethnologue is not particularly good source when it comes to details. It's an overview publication by a Christian missionary organization. It's probably good enough to get a rough idea of number of speakers or like, if you don't have a better source, but should not be used as an arbiter for anything controversial. For example, I recall that their entry for Bosnian used to list "4 million native speakers in Bosnia" (meaning, all Bosnian citizens) for quite a while; that is fixed now, but it just illustrates that they failed to investigate into nuances of Balkan quarelling.
• The problem is that the family list in the infobox is supposedly genetic; however, notions of Serbo-Croatian and Croatian and Serbian are socio-politic and socio-linguistic constructs. From a purely genetic linguistic standpoint "Western South Slavic" should be divided into Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Slovenian, rather than into "Serbo-Croatian" etc. Thus, the answer to the question "is Croatian language a genetic part of Serbo-Croatian or Western South Slavic" is Mu.

Happy edit-warring everyone. No such user (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Purely genetic division is not possible, if we include Torlakian which is transitional between Štokavian and Bulgaro-Maconian area. The terms "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" in 99.99% cases of English usage today mean "standard language", and this is by far the primary meaning of those terms everywhere (e.g. the ] is of standard idiom, not of any dialect). All those subliterary dialets will grow extinct within 1-2 generations (definitely by the end of this century), and there is little point in bothering with them. Most of their speeches are thoroughly Štokavianized now. Now, as far as the standard languages are concerned, from purely genetic viewpoint, they definitely represent a node becase they are all based on the same dialect (the Neoštokavian). Ethnologue does have occiasional blunders (you mentioned the figure of "4 million speakers of Bosnian", which was corrected only in the latest issue), but they got this right. Anyhow, I have no intention of edit-warring with Croatian nationalists. I see that Ex13 again reverted my change without any explanation . His edit summary was "see talkpage", but he didn't write anything.. Another user expressed interest in the mediation if this issue, so when he gets back we'll continue with this scary bit of reality ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurately

• (hrvatski, Croatian pronunciation: ) = inaccurately, croatian language has no Cyrillic!
• Croatian language is a separate and independent of other language based on the three dialects western shtokavian, kajkaviyan and chakavian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.101.186 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not Cyrillic script but IPA transcription: /x/ = voiceless velar fricative --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put a stop to this confusion. I have skimmed through the article and I can confirm that there are no Cyrillic characters in it anywhere. International Phonetic Alphabet is not the same thing as Cyrillic and somebody is getting incredibly upset about an entirely imagined problem. They need to calm down, stop insulting people, and understand what is really going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This language

thsi language is spoken in croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.85.79 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The image official languages in Vojvodina

The image of Vojvodina in this article is really bad. I didn't do the edit myself (it should be at least just removed for start).

The truth is that there are 6 official languages in entire Vojvodina (it's not divided by municipalities). These are: Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian, Rusyn and Croatian.

It would be the best to just use the census data as in this image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.120.74 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your analysis is entirely correct (as far as I know there is such thing as "official language on municipal level", because you cannot expect all local administrations to handle documents in all 6 languages). However, I agree that the map is largely useless and not really important for the article, so I removed it. No such user (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Literary language

I'd like to comment the fragment of the article:

"Književni jezik (literraly:language of books) is a common phrase for any standard language.'

Although my knowledge of Croatian is very rudimentary, I believe that the literal English translation should be "literary language", as "književnost" is a Croatian word for "literature". Wie man wird, was man ist 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameal (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing it out. I removed the whole paragraph, because it's pretty meaningless. Every major language has a "literary language" and there's no point in defining the term. No such user (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That književni is not related to književnost (novels , poetry) that is hardly written in standard language. That is croatian equivalent of Norwegian bokmal or riksmal: the language used for official purposes (laws, verdicts etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.156.130 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Croat versus Croatian

In my opinion term Croatian language is inappropriate. Croatian pertains to the country, and Croat to the nation. Croatians can be Croats but also Serbs, Italians, Hungarians etc. Croat is spoken by Croats regardless of where they live, similarly German by Germans, English by the English and French by the French. Just like in England, France and Germany - the people gave the name to the country, not the other way round (as is the case with Italy or Hungary). Using Croatian language instead of Croat language to my mind smacks of cultural snobism. No one would ever say that they speak Englandian or Frenchian. All of the above goes for Serb - Serbian and Serbo-Croat. Vladbohm (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In English, it's Croatian and Serbian. The ambiguity exists for many languages: English, French, German, Russian, Japanese, etc. (The French can also be Serbs, Italians, Hungarians, etc.; in fact, their president is.) I notice you didn't change Bosnian - the same argument could be made there. kwami (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What would I change it to? Bosnian is the case in point as here the country gave name to the people. Ditto Macedonia - Macedonian, Hungary - Hungarian (but Magyars - Magyar). Would you say Slovakian or Slovak, Slovenian or Slovene? The Danish gave name to the country and the language, so did Finns, but Iceland gave the name to the people and the language - so we have Icelandic and Finnish :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladbohm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Slovakian and Slovenian, of course. Without the word "language",Slovak and Slovene can also be used, but the people aren't "Slovenes", they're "Slovenians". Thanks for pointing out the bad English at Slovak language; that needs to be moved. kwami (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian?

An editor, Ex13, is insisting that Croatian and Serbian are no closer to each other than they are to Slovenian. Am I the only one who thinks this is nonsense? Of course, I recognize that all of South Slavic is a dialect continuum, so theoretically we could say that Bulgarian belongs here to, but would we? Can anyone explain to me why we should present South Slavic as,

as if they were all equally distant lects, rather than as,

showing that BCSM have an especially close relationship? Whatever the politics in the Balkans, I don't want to mislead our readers into thinking that, despite their separate standards, that these are separate languages the way English speakers normally think of the word "language". After all, if you speak Stokavian Croatian, Stokavian Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, would you be justified is calling yourself quadrilingual? kwami (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Because SC is political language. "BCSM" does not exist. Please see the source --Ex13 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatian is also a "political language". So what? You're stuck with either SC or something silly like "BCSM". Please see your own source. kwami (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for you is political language. You never read croatian or serbian literature, or maybe never heard singl word of it--Ex13 (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to communicate :) There are two distinct issues in the last revert - whether "Serbo-Croatian" should be put under "Western South Slavic", and whether the Sounds section should be merged into Serbo-Croatian article. Those are two very different things conflated into a single changeset...

Regarding the first part, the heading of that part of the infobox is language family, but that article doesn't seem to have clear-cut micromanagement advice. It delves definitively as deep into the tree as Slavic languages. That article in turn goes down to South Slavic, and then says that it "subdivides" into a "Western subgroup", where there are Slovenian, Croatian and others. So not including the term Serbo-Croatian in the family tree here does not seem like an abuse, merely a difference in opinions. Indeed, in the literary history, Croatian precedes Serbo-Croatian, so it depends if we are looking at the family tree from a standpoint where we trace the historical origins, or from a standpoint of a technical categorization.

Regarding the second part - that doesn't really make sense to me. While it's indisputable that the verb syntax is so exceedingly similar between Croatian and Serbo-Croatian that it's hard to justify separation, it's the sounds that aren't similar between all 'children' of Serbo-Croatian, particularly in the case of Croatian which includes non-Štokavian dialects. --Joy (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your last point, we have separate articles on non-Shtokavian dialects. The Croatian article deals almost exclusively with Stokavian. Thus the Shtokavian coverage could be profitably merged; anything left over would remain where it currently is. (I suppose we could have "Shtokavian grammar", but most English speakers would be clueless as to what that means, whereas everyone knows what Serbo-Croatian is.) Or we could merge all dialects: covering them all under SC would be no different than covering them all under Croatian. kwami (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we could merge all Slavic languages into single article, so that English speakers understand. Also I suggest to merge all Scandinavian into one article. From time to time here comes users that somewhere reads about BCS or SC language, and then thinks that they know all about South Slavic languages claiming that they are NPOV, and others are POV pushers --Ex13 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. --Joy (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, proponents of Serbo-Croatian like to use it as a cover term, and such usage by innocent bystanders is completely legit. But just like that, using Croatian as a cover term for (western) Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian is no less legit.

I'm not quite sure I would agree with your sentence in parenthesis - not everyone, especially not all English speakers, know what "Serbo-Croatian" is. There is no real reason to assume extensive post-1850s/pre-1990s education from all English speakers... and I'm being very specific and kind regarding the assumption of knowledge :) --Joy (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone, especially not all English speakers, know what "Croatian" is. Most of them in fact think in terms of Yugoslavia and "Yugoslavian language". The thing is, we don't target average everyday ignoramus, but strive to be as extensive as possible. Serbo-Croatian is a valid genetic clade and must be mentioned. Who cares if some nationalist bigot's feelings get hurt. Facts are facts. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion how the four should be grouped: as Joy said, there's the catch that term "Croatian language" means both "Croatian standard language" and "set of 3 dialects spoken by Croats". Rather, there are two concurrent hierarchies: dialectal one (West South Slavic > {Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, Slovenian}), and socio-linguistic one (Standard Serbo-Croatian(Shtokavian) > {Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian}). If forced to pick (you know the FpaS' "infoboxes must burn in hell" meme?), I would go with the latter (i.e. Kwami's) suggestion, but only just.

In any case, whichever decision is taken, it should be consistently applied to all 4 daughter language articles. As I said on Talk:Serbo-Croatian language#merge, phonology, grammar, morphology etc. should be merged under Serbo-Croatian grammar, with only a brief summary (if at all) mentioned in the 4 articles. No such user (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a set of three dialects spoken by Croats; the standard Croatian (or, if you will, old standard Croato-Serbian, heh) is based on Shtokavian but it incorporates word forms from Chakavian and Kajkavian. If you just look at the Schleicher's fable (currently at Serbo-Croatian#Dialects) there are several examples of how the standard took some forms from one and some from another. And that is completely disregarding the historical side of the debate, where e.g. you have such extremes such as Vuk Karadžić thinking Kajkavian *is* Croatian (we have a picture here on Misplaced Pages where he claims that Croatian has no ć, but I can't find it right now). What you quote as a sociolinguistic hierarchy is then also inherently flawed. --Joy (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern standard Croatian is exclusively based on Štokavian, and the words that have entered the literary standard from Čakavian and Kajkavian are statistically insignificant (some 20-30 lexical units at most, all of them phonologically "Štokavianized", almost all of them regionally confined). Kajkavian and Čakavian are spoken at rural areas, have no literary prestige whatsoever, haven't had literary tradition for centuries, are not taught in schools, and according to the mot optimistic estimates are bound to die out by the end of this century due to ever-increasing Štokavianization accelerated with the advent of modern mass media and the Internet. Schleicher's fable that you're referencing in no way proves your statement that the "standard took some forms from one, and some from anoher" - that's all inherited Slavic vocabulary. The standard of modern Croatian is direct descendant (with trivial modifications) of former Serbo-Croatian standard which was official in Croatia until ~20 years ago. Karadžić has nothing to do with this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Short quote from "Povijest hrvatskoga književnoga jezika" (History of Croatian literary language), page 178, Milan Moguš, ISBN 953-167-014-5:

• Štoviše, za hrvatske je pisce bilo jasno i to da čakavska i kajkavska književna stilizacija nikada nisu prestale biti sastavnim dijelom jezika hrvatske književnosti. Unatoč željama hrvatskih vukovaca za štokavskom unifikacijom, čiji su nastupi postali jasni već šezdesetih godina 19. stoljeća, hrvatski je jezični standard ipak bio neprestano otvoren prema jezičnom bogatstvu i književnim stilizacijama naslijeđa.
• Moreover, for Croatian writers it were clear that čakavian and kajkavian literary stylization never ceased to be an integral part of the language of Croatian literature. Despite the wishes of the Croatian Vuk's followers for štokavian unification, whose performances have become clear already in the sixties of the 19th century, the Croatian language standard was always kept open to the richness of linguistic and literary heritage of stylization.

In other words, academic Moguš tells us clearly that Croatian followers of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić wanted to join Croatian to Serbian (or with Serbian) in some unified language. He does not mention political name of that unified language (Serbo-Croatian), but mentions that idea was inherently flawed, because Croatian language is not just štokavian, but blend of štokavian, čakavian and kajkavian. For examples please read the above book, there are too many of them to copy/paste here. I see Misplaced Pages as project that honors culture of any nation, and respects facts and sources. And sources are clear, Serbian and Croatian were never one language called Serbo-Croatian, they are close but different kindred south slavic languages. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just bollocks. Modern literary Croatian is exclusively Neoštokavian (Eastern Herzegovinian), and there are countless credible sources to verify this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

bollocks is not an argument. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither is the nonsense you cited. Just because some deranged extremist somewhere wrote that standard Croatian has "Čakavian and Kajkavian stylizations", it does't mean that it actually has (there is the reality, and there is the imagination). It hasn't. I've read many (Serbo-)Croatian grammars (including comparative-historical), dictionaries, papers on the topic, and the only influences from those minor dialects in standard are in lexis, and very limited in scope. Citing from Robert Greenberg's Language an Identity on the Balkan, p. 121:

Thus, despite recent interventions, the Croatian standard has remained resistant to regional dialectisms. Such resistance is further seen in the use of the interrogative pronoun što vs. kaj. Hence, even though most natives of Zagreb use kaj for "what" rather than the standard form što, the form kaj is considered to be colloquial or dialectal. 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, only a "certain number" ("određeni broj") of words from these dialects have been absorbed into the standard Croatian lexical stock, including: hrđa 'rust, corrosion', imetak 'property', klesar 'stone cutter, stone mason', krstitke 'baptismal party', kukac 'insect', ladanje 'farm/estate, country vacation', podrobno 'in detail', pospan 'sleepy, drowsy', prah 'powder, dust', rubac 'handkerchief, rublje 'laundry, linen', skladatelj 'composer', spužva 'sponge', tjedan 'week', tlak 'pressure' (Barić et al. 1999: 56). The authors of the Savjetnik confirmed that only in terms of lexicon can Croatian be simultaneously Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian, and that by contrast, in the realm of accentuation, the Croatian language is solely Neo-Štokavian in nature (ibid.: 70).

Clearly, these Čakavian and Kajkavian lexical items have become identified with the Croatian language, and would be considered non-native to Serbs, Bosniacs, and Montenegrins. Nonetheless, after the Ottoman invasions in the Balkans, the Štokavian dialects spread across the Croatian lands at the expense of the Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects (Katicic 1984: 264—5). Despite their pronouncements, the Croats have sacrificed these dialects in the name of unity for the Croatian Štokavian standard. Today the Čakavian dialect continues to decline, while the Kajkavian dialect has remained vibrant as it affects the urban vernacular of Zagreb (cf. Magner 1966). This urban vernacular, however, has had little influence over the standard language. 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.

As I said, these "stylizations" are more theoretical than actual, in practice only lexical in form and very limited in scope (a few dozen words), lots of which have even found the was to the speech of Serbs and Bosniaks so even if they were "native Croatian" once, they're not anymore exclusively so. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation seems rather like RP in English, which has influences from other parts of England, but remains essentially the dialect of London. You wouldn't call it a "blend" of various dialects because in contains some words and even pronunciations from them.

Effectively what we've got here is a dialect cluster, which might be simplified for sake of discussion into a chain s.t. like the following:

The common perception and the cladistics disagree. There is of course no sharp boundary between groups of these dialects, so there really is no Slovene, Croat, Serb, or Bulgarian language is a purely cladistic sense. 1–6 or 7 is considered West SS, and 7 or 8–10 East SS, but the continuum isn't actually bifurcated. Slovene is 1–3. Croatian is 4–6. Serbian is 6–7. Serbo-Croatian is 4–7. Bulgarian is 8–9 or 10. Macedonian is 9–10, unless you're Greek, in which case it's neither. So we can't speak of "Croatian" in a cladistic sense, yet we provide a cladistic classification for it. There's going to be some tension here. I would argue against listing Shtokavian as a superordinate category for either Croatian or Serbian, since not all dialects lumped into either conception are Shtokavian. But Serbo-Croatian is a superordinate category in that it includes the dialects of both, but is subordinate to Western SS as it excludes the dialects lumped under Slovenian. By removing SC from the classification, we're effectively saying that the languages in (6) are equidistant with the others, which they are not. kwami (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The term Serbo-Croatian is necessery in two senses

1. As a cover term for the common dialectal basis of all 4 modern-day standards, all of which are direct continuations of a former Serbo-Croatian standard. These 4 "languages" are completely mutually intelligible, share 99% of grammar (exactly the same phonology, inflection, minor differences only in syntax), and are generally viewed as 4 different varieties of one underlying language, which is the reason why they're regularly taught "combined" in language courses. You cannot e.g learn "Croatian", and not simultaneously have the same proficiency in "Serbian" or "Bosnian" (or in any other combination thereof). All 4 modern-day standards have had a common codified standard for some 140 years (which is much longer than 20 years in "separation"), and have had common linguistic prehistory of Neoštokavian dialect that spans centuries. It makes a lot of sense to group them together.
2. There is another issue which nobody mentioned. Citing from Matasović's comparative-historical grammar of Croatian, p.64:

   Nema nikakve dvojbe da postoji potreba za terminom koji bi izrazio činjenicu da su upravo čakavski, štokavski i kajkavski dijalekti, osobito tijekom burnoga razdoblja seobi izazvanih turskim osvajanjima u 15. i 16. st., intenzivno utjecali jedni na druge, što je dovelo i do nastanka miješanih dijalekata, osobito na štokavskom području.

   There is no doubt that one needs a term to express the fact that Čakavian, Štokavian ad Kajkavan dialects, especially during the tumultuous period of migrations caused by Ottoman conquest in the 15th and 16th centuries, have made intensive influence on one another, which gave rise to "mixed" dialects, especially on Štokvian area.

In other words, the Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects have historically been profoundly influenced by the Štokavian expansion during the period of Ottoman-caused migrations (note that there were never reverse trends: it was always Štokavian speech that has spread at the expense of other two), and that form of deep mutual influence can also be conveniently covered by the term Serbo-Croatian. Modern Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian are deeply interconnected and it makes sense to group them all together under one umbrella term. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

This artificial construct has never existed; I know it's hard for some people to swallow this, but it isn't my fault. The Croatian people, linguists, everyone... has the same aversion to this term as blacks or African-Americans have towards the term "Nigger". So, be kind to avoid this terminology since it leads only to useless edit wars. http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac383.nsf/AllWebDocs/Srpsko_hrvatski_nikada_nije_ostvaren__jer_nije_postojao

http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac380.nsf/AllWebDocs/Hrvatski_iz_perspektive_indoeuropskoga

http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm

http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/138/tekstovi/06.htm

http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-povijest-1.html

Mir Harven (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not exacly a secret that a number of Croats, linguists included, have resentment towards the term "Serbo-Croatian", so your links are not a revelation. Your statement that "The Croatian people, linguists, everyone... has the same aversion to this term ... as the term "Nigger"" is a clear exaggeration though. If that were true, why would the vast majority of English-speaking linguists continue to use the term to refer to the languages as collectivity? Google Scholar returns 9,380 hits for "Serbo-Croatian" after 1991 -- why is it so if it is so offensive? The world is usually sensitive if a term hurts one's feelings and would eventually discontinue using it. Even (more serious part of) those does not deny that Croatian and Serbian are one genetic language (i.e. form a dialectal continuum), although they refer to it as Central South Slavic diasystem (whose coinage it was, btw?). Still, no shorter and more neutral term than "Serbo-Croatian" has been established in the English-speaking world, so we continue to use it, for lack of a better one. No such user (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no world-class English-language experts re Croatian (or Serbian, for that matter) language. They just copy-paste old & dated textbooks which are a complete mess & suggest that there had been (or has been) a Serbo-Croatian language. Well- no such thing. This was a cover term such as Hindi-Urdu or Czechoslovakian, without linguistic content. Of course that there are contemporary experts re Croatian language, for instance:

Artur Bagdasarov: http://www.amazon.com/Khorvatskii-literaturnyi-poloviny-uchebnoe-posobie/dp/5747403060/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1272033908&sr=1-3-fkmr1

Leopold Auburger: http://www.amazon.com/Die-kroatische-Sprache-Serbokroatismus-German/dp/3873360098/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272033959&sr=1-7

Barbara Oczkowa: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL22678754M/Chorwaci_i_ich_je%CC%A8zyk

then Ljudmila Vasiljeva, Joanna Rapacka, ...

The fact that some institutions (ISO, the Hague tribunal etc.) still use a dated "Serbo-Croatian" (or HBS, BCS, whatever) label is not sufficient enough for reintroduction of the despised and devalued term. Mir Harven (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Wayles Browne, Frederik Kortlandt, Vladimir Dybo, Kenneth Naylor Robert Greenberg? All of them published numerous papers on Serbo-Croatian language, its historical development, some also of sociolinguistics aspects of its modern-day standards . Your attempt to discredit everyone except "native experts" and their cronies on the payroll of HAZU is nothing short of laughable. American, Dutch and German Slavic circles have a long history of studying Serbo-Croatian, and their opinions deserve to be taken into account. NPOV principle requires that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you're arguing against. As for my part, I don't argue that Serbian and Croatian are the one same standard language, and I assert that differences in standardization (and underlying vernaculars as well) certainly exist. On the other hand, I assert that they share the dialectal base (Neoshtokavian), as well as large part of the dictionary, morphology etc. Thus, being based on the same dialect and sharing most of the dictionary (especially basic one, large differences in scientific vocabulary notwithstanding), they're completely mutually intelligible, and thus form one diasystem, or, in layman's terms (what Kwami calls "everyday English meaning of the workd"), a language. That diasystem/language has several names, the most common one being "Serbo-Croatian". On the other hand, I can agree that as a standard language, "Serbo-Croatian" does not exist (I would say, "anymore", you would likely say "never"). No such user (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to try to find a cover term which would encompass the dialects of Serbian and Croatian, nor the pseudo-entity that would suggest that Croatian and Serbian are, to some extent, "branches" of this alleged entity which doesn't (and didn't) exist. The term "Serbo-Croatian" is useless in both ways it is still sometimes used: a) as a standard language, it never existed, b) as a group of dialects, it's ordinary usage distorts language facts and history since Croatian is not influenced by Torlakian and Eastern Štokavian dialects, nor is Serbian influenced by Čakavian od Western Štokavian dialects. Moreover, similar situations (Bulgarian and Macedonian, Danish and Norwegian rijksmal, Urdu and Hindi) don't have any superimposed labels. Therefore, revert. Let Serbo-Croatian go where it belongs, a history's dustbin. Mir Harven (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a good reason, because all those 4 modern-day standards have 99% identical grammar and vocabulary, and are taught as one language on 99% of world's universities. Up until 20 years ago they have had common grammars, dictionaries and orthographies. The rest of your analogies are inapplicable logical fallacies. The common term is still heavily used (either as Serb-Croatian, or BCS(M)), and there is no reason to ignore it just because a bunch of Croatia nationalist-linguists disagrees. In English-speaking literature it's used, so we must mention it, clarify it, and use where it's appropriate. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to find a cover term. The branch exist, and we need a label for it. We follow WP:Common. You've misrepresented things here: The cover term for Bulg. & Mac. is Eastern South Slavic. They, and the Skandinavian tongues, are at least based on different dialects, even if they're extremely close. SCBM are all based on the same dialect, at least as official langs, which sets them apart as a group from Slovenian. We need a term for that group. This is, after all, cladistics. Standard SC existed because the govt said it did, but that's irrelevant to this article: we're not talking about artificial standards in a genealogy. Urdu and Standard Hindi are indeed a parallel case: identical languages apart from their standardized forms, both Khariboli dialect, differing in script and only because of religious differences between their speakers. But if those articles have been reverted to some nonsense about Standard Hindi Khariboli dialect and Urdu Khariboli dialect being distinct branches of Indic, then that needs to be corrected, not used as an argument for similar nonsense here. SC is part of the classification of these languages. IMO it's the only viable English term, though of course that's a legitimate matter for debate. For now, back it goes: the branch remains regardless of what we call it, and you can discuss what to call it here. And BTW, deletion of requests for discussion is considered vandalism. kwami (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no reason for a cover term except Western South Slavic. Genetically, there had never been anything like "Serbo-Croatian"; typologically, the situation is the same. Only as a socio-political construct did philologists and part of the general public didi believe that there was a standard Serbo-Croatian language. So, where we are ?

Genetic linguistics: Western and Eastern South Slavic, no Serbo-Croatian (or any other term that would encompass Čakavian + Kajkavian + Štokavian + Torlakian dialects)

Typological linguistics or linguistic typology: Western and Eastern South Slavic, no Serbo-Croatian (as above)

Standard languages classification: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin, no Serbo-Croatian, since all these standard languages are not, nor have ever been "branches" or "variants" or "versions" of one standard language- be it called Serbo- Croatian, Illyrian, Bosnian, Slovin, Dalmatian or whatever. For reasons beyond this little chat, you're trying to resurrect an ideological corpse. Mir Harven (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, genetically, standard Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin are one and the same subdialect of Štokavian - Neoštokavian. It's unimaginable how one dialect (moreover, one subdialect of that same dialect) can simultaneously be "different languages". Čakavian, Kajkavian and Torlakian and different languages altogether, and are only called "dialects" because they're not codified in some universal literary form (in a common, layman sense of the word dialect). Geneticaly, modern standard B/C/S/M do represent a genetic clade and did have common ancestral form (Proto-Štokavian, plus Neoštokavan trais that developed to the 14th-15th century). Since they shared a common ancestor, that fact must be mentioned. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, wrong. 1) Croatian (standard) does not have a dialectal basis (see below- the same with German). 2) here we again see the confusion of the interpretative levels: dialectology and standardology are hopelessly confused. Croatian in the 15th, 16th, 17th,..has been always a mixture, or, in a more nuanced way, from the 16th century on, the standardization of Croatian, vide dialects- generally- revolved around Štokavian-jekavian with strong Čakavian and Kajkavian ingredients. The essence of Croatian standard is not the imaginary Štokavian (for the major part of Štokavian dialects material, from phonology to syntax, did not enter into standard Croatian), but the interraction between its speakers, which can be traced from the language of Vatican Croatian Prayer Book, Bartol Kašić's works to Radoslav Katičić's syntax and treatises on Croatian language standardization. Mir Harven (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing mr. Ranko Matasović, the pre-eminent Croatian academician and authority on the lingistic (pre)history of (Serbo-)Croatian, from his book published 2 years, The Comparative Grammar of Croatian Language, page 34:

hrvatski je suvremeni standardni jezik, službeni jezik Republike Hrvatske, koji se razvio na temelju samo jednoga narječja kojim govore Hrvati, i to narječja koje su kao osnovu za standardizaciju, u drugim povijesnim okolnostima, odabrali i drugi narodi (Srbi, Bošnjaci i Crnogorci).

in translation:

Standard Croatian language, the official language of the Republic of Croatia, has developed only on the basis of a singular dalect spoken by Croats, a dialect which has also been chosen as a basis for standardization, in other historical circumstances, by other peoples (Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrin).

Lisac in his 2003 book on Štokavian dialects says the same thing. There's really no need to lie: standard Croatia is pure Neoštokavian. There are no "strong Čakavian and Kajkavian ingredient", that's just absurd. 15th century Dubrovnikans have absolutely nothing in common with the linguistic predecessors of modern-day self-styled Croats in e.g. Slavonia or Istria. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, the world isn't really usually sensitive if a term hurts one's feelings. A few months ago some members of the European Parliament proposed to the body that they don't list Croatian as one of the (future) languages of the EU, but instead Serbo-Croatian. This was rejected by the majority in the EP, but not before the Croatian press had a round of general consternation - all local press sources led with that title: Jutarnji, Večernji, Slobodna, Novi list, 24sata, HRT, Nova, ... if practically all mainstream media outlets jump on the story, you can be sure that the topic is something that is sure to rile up the public. --Joy (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take too seriously an initiative of "some members of the European parliament". They've been known to propose much larger bull than that. On the other hand, I can understand the desire of European regulators to reduce overall translation costs in the future. Surely the Croatian public is sensitive to the matter which is chiefly political and loaded; but in the case at hand, I think we're trying to base the editorial decision more on scientific (and less on political) grounds. No such user (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatia also donated tens of thousands of pages of legal documentation to Serbia (and later Bosnia and Montenegro were also mentioned IIRC) , which was translated from English, in order to save millions of euros of expenses to other ex-Yu states were Serbo-Croatian is also spoken. In order words, the language of money speaks much louder than the headlines of cheap tabloids which have a stake in promoting nationalistic hysteria. I'm pretty sure that EU will recognize only one translation language in order to reduce costs which already measure in more than billion euros a year, and which rise sharply (^2, from and to every language) with the addition of new member states. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am bemused as to why we are discussing this here. If people seriously contend that Serbo-Croatian is not a genuine language or language group then they should go to Serbo-Croatian language and put that article up for AfD, supplying a convincing rationale for deletion, rather than try to unlink it from some specific articles. It is either a valid subject or it isn't. It needs to be kept or purged from Misplaced Pages as a whole. I can't claim any knowledge of the subject myself but my impression is that Serbo-Croatian language is a long standing article that appears reasonably well referenced and which exists in vast numbers of the other Misplaced Pages languages. It certainly doesn't look like a hoax, a misunderstanding or a fringe viewpoint. The article acknowledges that it is a sensitive subject and seems to do a good job of explaining this in a neutral way. In short, while I have an open mind, it will take a lot more than hyperbolic assertions to persuade me that it is bogus. While it may be true that outdated material still exists and circulates on this subject, I find the above assertion that no English speaking linguist has any current knowledge of the subject very hard to swallow. That sounds like a rather lame excuse for not having adequate sources to back the claim. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

1) So-called "Serbo-Croatian" is the political project. Not the true language. The project was kept alive by the force of the weapons. Any attempt of promoting of independent Croatian was violently persecuted.
Since "Serbo-Croatian" was a project, it has it's own article, just like any other project, like Frankenstein.
2) Croatian language hasn't appeared with the "dissolution of Serbo-Croatian". Croatian existed centuries before that project.
3) Standard Croatian is based on 3 dialects. It was standardized in end of 15th c., with the entry of Dubrovnikan literature (Stjepan Babić: Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, p. 250), in which at that time, Dubrovnik dialect of Shtokavian was in use. Croatian linguists made bunch of grammars and dictionaries since Bartol Kašić and 1604. Since then, Croatian developed evolutively, with no big breaks and turning points.
4) Standard Serbian is based on one dialect. It was standardized in 19th century with Vuk Karadžić. It was revolutionary change, compared to Serbian Church Slavonic. Karadžić used a lot solutions that were long ago in active use among Croats.
5) There's no need for cover term. "South Slavic languages" is enough, since Croats are South Slavs. Serbo-Croatian is very bad and insultive term. Croats aren't Serbs.
6) Arguments about the Slavists that use the term "Serbo-Croatian". Pre-20th century "science" also used the term "nigger" and "proved" that Slavs and non-whites are Untermensch. Don't use ideologized literature. Kubura (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Irrelevant. You're arguing a strawman, just like Mir above. I can accept the thesis that Serbo-Croatian standard language was a political project, but this is not at all what the discussion is about. This discussion is about how the cover term for Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin should be termed and phrased. Please read carefully Mijo Lončarić, Odnosi među standardnim jezicima which is a fine overview of the debate. Although the autor argues that standard Serbo-Croatian has not existed, he (as well as other Croatian linguists, including Brozovic, who is on the far end of the "independists" spectrum) still states in the Conclusion that "Crnogorski, bošnjački, hrvatski, i srpski čine svojevrstan dijasistem književnih jezika".

Brozović's invention of the "Central South Slavic diasystem" is: a) not generally accepted either among Croatian linguists, or among world slavicists. b) the very intention of this- botched, it seems- invention is to get rid of the detested "Serbo-Croatian " label, the very one you're trying to reimpose. So, while Brozović's CSS remains a blunder, your insistence on "Serbo-Croatian" is much more. Mir Harven (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

2) Standard Croatian is not based on 3 dialects. It is based on Shtokavian dialect, just like Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin (in its craddle). There exist rich Croatian literature in Kajkavian and Chakavian, but very little of it has made it to the standard Croatian, as defined in grammars and textbooks. Your statement that "It was standardized in end of 15th century" is ridiculous: no language has been standardized at that time (except maybe Latin, although a better term would be petrified). See definition of standard language.

3), 4) True but irrelevant for the issue at hand.

Wrong. Standard Croatian does not have a dialectal basis, much as standard German doesn't. Standard Croatian is stylized (not based) around Western Štokavian-Čakavian mixture of the Dubrovnik language literature, then refurbished in the Illyrian period of Gaj, Kukuljević and Mažuranić (see the works of Branka Tafra and Josip Vončina that explicitly deny that Croatian in the 19th century has had any dialectal basis- just a stylization around Neoštokavian-jekavian nucleus which cannot be found, as a spoken idiom, anywhere). With the advent of Croatian Vukovians (Maretić, Budmani, Iveković,..) Štokavian purism appeared, but it eventually sizzled. This fact can be illustrated on all levels, from accentuation to syntax: for instance, standard Croatian uses prefix "protu" (anti)- protupitanje, protumjera,.., which is Kajkavian, as different from "protiv", which is Štokavian- protivpitanje, protivm(j)era,... This "Štokavian" fixation is both irrational & untrue: Croatian is not "based" on Štokavian (as Hindi and Urdu are based one one dialect, and no one tries to impose a Hindi-Urdu cover term (now- there have been similar designations before, but have largely fell out of use); the profile of this standard language is much more determined by its cultural stylization than by its dialectal ingredients- be they Štokavian, Kajkavian or Čakavian. A language is irreducible to a dialect, or to the set of dialects, as much as genetics or chemistry are not reducible to physics. Mir Harven (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, that's just pure BS that Croatian "has no dialectal basis". It has - it's Neoštokavian, and the criteria satisfying that classification can be found in specialized handbooks such as Matasović's comparative-historical grammar, or Lisac's book on Štokavian dialects (all printed in post-2000, both by prominent Croatian authors). What Mir Harven writes above is pure nonsense (see what nationalism does to your mind? It's like drugs). Interestingly, The Croatian Misplaced Pages claimed the Neoštokavian basis for standard Croatian all the way until August 16th 2009 when an IP (almost 100% Mir Harven himself) changed it to "It has no dialectal basis". Ridiculous. This just furthermore proves that we're dealing with a delicate case of history fabrication, were facts are twisted in order to suit one's imagination. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

5) Says you that there's no need for the cover term. Linguists across the world disagree, because they need a single term to describe the common features in all encompassed languages.

6) Again strawman. The term "Serbo-Croatian" is not a relict of 19th century, but is actively used in 21st century. Your (and not only yours) dislike of it is duly noted, but that's the most common term for the diasystem. The most popular other name is BCS(M), and Central South Slavic diasystem lagging behind. However, we report what sources do, and sources prevalently call this diasystem "Serbo-Croatian". No such user (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems clear that the opposition to the term SC is due to political connotations it has in Croatian, and has nothing to do with how the term is used in English, which is simply as a Dachsprache for BCSM. I'm restoring what most of us here agree is the more WP:NPOV version of the article per WP:English. kwami (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian" confusions revisited

Apart from a few bemused & disinterested "visitors", it seems to me that most of the "initiative" to revive a "Serbo-Croatian" corpse comes from mourners of the failed Yugoslav experiment. So, the motivation is eminently political & ideological. Since arguments pro & con tended to be diffused and confused, I'll enumerate a few cardinal points.

1. there are no world English-language eminent slavicists writing today. Some, like Greenberg, have published pamphlets on the language(s) destruction, but these works are of no philological importance. It would take us too long just to count the falsities in Greenberg's book.

2. but, the whole idea of "foreign" experts as something crucial regarding an eminently national subject is ridiculous. The best experts on Croatian language are Croatian linguists. And the majority of them, who described the structure & charted the history of Croatian language (Dalibor Brozović, Radoslav Katičić, Stjepan Babić,..), tend to agree on the following points:

• Croatian as an individualized common language has emerged somewhere between 1500 (Babić) and 1750 (Brozović), as a three dialects language, with Croatian Western Štokavian serving as the axis around various Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects accrued

• Croatian does not have a dialectal basis- meaning it has been "built" "upon" (Štokavian) dialect(s). It has been stylized, for ca. 4 centuries around Dubrovnik & Bosnian Western Štokavian and Čakavian dialects. Eastern Štokavian & Torlakian dialects did not play any role in the proces of its crystallization, from accentuation to stylistics (unlike, for instance, Serbian and Montenegrin).

• description of a language is given in two or three books: normative dictionary, normative grammar and, perhaps, normative stylistics (one could add phraseology or, in Croatian case, an orthography). Leaving for a moment Montenegrin and Bosnian side, Croatian and Serbian overlap in ca. 80% of their grammatical and lexical content: http://www.vjesnik.com/Html/2000/06/01/ClanakTx.asp?r=kul&c=1 Taking into account yat reflexes as the de facto demarcation line (not to speak of the script), overlapping is, lexically, slightly less than 50%.

• three levels of description are regularly confused: genetic, typological-structural and normative (standardological). In all three levels there is no sense nor need for Serbo-Croatian designation. Genetically and typologically, the umbrella term for Croatian and Bosnian and Serbian and Montenegrin is Western South Slavic. Standardologically, this term is also incorrect and offensive, since:

a) Croatian is a three dialects tongue, with Croatian Štokavian dialects serving as nucleus for standardization & Kajkavian and Čakavian added to the language "alloy". Serbian and Montenegrin are based (not stylized) on Eastern Štokavian dialects (Bosnian on Western Štokavian)- all three without any Čakavian and Kajkavian influence in phonetics, morphology, syntax, lexicon and stylistics.It is incorrect re Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin since the implied use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" is, typology-wise, inclusive of Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects.

b) the entire approach of the "Serbo-Croatian" partisans is a dated neo-grammarian one. A "language" is much more than the basic grammar (phonology, morphology, basic syntax). Just as it is irrational to try to reduce a physical body to the skeleton, and leave aside muscular, neurological, endocrine, .. systems- it is the same with the language, which consists also of accentuation, dictionary, complete syntax, stylistics, semantics, phraseology, specialized terminology,.. And in these areas lie crucial differences between Western South Slavic languages.

c) one encounters double standards in languages classification. As has been noted, Hindi and Urdu (closer than Serbian and Croatian, for what's worth) are not put under Hindi-Urdu umbrella; neither are Danish and Norwegian Rijksmal. This double-standard policy is best illustrated with macro-language classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_639_macrolanguage So- according to this, Croatian and Serbian and Bosnian are parts/variants of a macrolanguage http://en.wikipedia.org/ISO_639:hbs#hbs But, lo and behold: there is no macro-language which would serve as umbrella language for Urdu and Hindi, or Bahasa Indonesia and Malay. Typical double standard.

d) by putting a "Serbo-Croatian" (non-existent, save in political linguists classifications) "language" on the same level of relevance as are Arabic or Norwegian, one suggests that the "Serbo-Croatian" is, somehow, a true "entity", and Bosnian or Croatian or .. are specific realizations (variants, versions) of this "entity". Which is completely wrong. Because, simply, "Serbo-Croatian" is not and has never been an "entity" (so to speak). It was just a temporary cover term without any substance, and impossible to be realized either in speech or in text. As Croatian writer Tomislav Ladan has said- referring to the term coined by Croatian linguist Kruno Krstić, this centaur-like term for centaur-like "language" is no more meaningful than horse-donkey centaur-term for a non-existent species of a quadruped. Mir Harven (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was the one mostly behind the initiative here. I care nothing about Yugoslavia, and have no emotional attachment to it, to Croatia, or to Serbia. I have taken the same approach, and with much of the same nationalist backlash, to Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu, where Standard Hindi is a standardized register of Urdu, though few will admit it, and Urdu = Khari Boli is a dialect of Hindi, though few will admit that either) and to Malay (Malaysian-Indonesian, where Indonesian is a group of dialect derived from one of the Malasian dialects of Malay). Excluding the abortive Moldavian, and a few Usonians who say they speak "American", these three are the most egregious cases of national standards parading as independent languages. People have brought up Scandinavian as a counter-example, but at least those standards are based on separate dialects, whereas the BCSM, Hindi-Urdu, and Malaysian-Indonesian are each based on the same dialect. On the opposite extreme is Chinese, and to a lesser extent Arabic and German, which purport to be single languages despite in many cases a total lack of mutual intelligibility. As an encyclopedia, one of our jobs should be to show where the local conception of "language" is likely to differ from that of our readers, where we're discussing ethnicity or literature rather than intelligibility. This is certainly the case for Croatian: If you speak two languages, you are bilingual. If you speak Chakavian and Shtokavian you're officially monolingual, but closer to being bilingual than if you speak Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian.

BTW, the US Foreign Services Institute still trains American diplomats in "Serbo-Croatian", This is the common use of the term in English, and Croatian sensitivities of what Srpskohrvatski mean in Croatian, while of interest to the article, should not be used to override WP:Common name and WP:English. kwami (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mir Harven please spare us of you longish nationalist fairy tales. The term Serbo-Croatian is still widely used in English (and German, Russian, Dutch...). The classification of Croatian under the same clade that would also encompass other Štokavian standards is just common sense. We don't care if you're "offended" by the term. The common classification is imperative. Your statements of "three-dialectal Croatian with no particular basis" are just absurd. If you cannot provide credible evidence supporting such claims (which you can't, and I can cite you plenty of counter-evidence claiming otherwise), we're not interested. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Better try to update your knowledge: http://www.jutarnji.hr/-misljenje-da-je-hrvatski-zasnovan-na-srpskom-dijalektu-vrlo-je-zivo-u-srbiji-/180208/ Mir Harven (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ivan Štambuk,
have you ever read the message of our dear colleague Ivan Štambuk, written here on wiki, on this very page. He nicely explained so-called Serbo-Croatian issue here
"Dear Serbo-Croatian comrades,... you...having been indoctrinated by books written by ex-professors of "Serbo-Croatian languages" who graduated "Yugoslavistics", which for pure political reasons pushed the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" as an alleged "genetic node" in the South Slavic branch. This notion of abundantly exploited for misappropriation of Croat-only cultural heritage, of which there are plenty of remnants in modern Serbian books (...bugaršćice by Molise Croats and medieval Čakavian writers like Hektorović as a part of "Serbian epic poetry"...)...".
Colleague Ivan Štambuk nicely told that. Ivan Štambuk, I hope you won't tag Ivan Štambuk as "nationalist that tells fairy tales". Kubura (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No you insolent nationalist troll, I was persuaded otherwise for years ago, as you know it very well. That's what intelligent people do when confronted with counter-evidence. Bigoted fundamentalist just repeat their old dogmas for over and over again. Get over it Kubura, your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that that myth has nothing to do with reality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, attacking each other isn't going to get us anywhere. All of the reliable sources support Ivan. That's all we need. If some people don't like it, then they need to find the evidence to persuade us otherwise. If they do not care to engage in rational, civil debate, then they can and should be ignored. kwami (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• 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