Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Misleading

In part of article states:

"According to data collected from various census bureaus and administrative agencies the total number of native Serbo-Croatian speakers in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro is about 16 million."

Since there is no any references that provides information which bureaus and agencies collect and publish that informations this is misleading. Refering to some agencies and bureaus gives fallse security sense that this information is given by some reliable source (state bureau or agencie), which is not truth. If I may say that no census bureau published information that there is any speaker of SC language since 2001 at least in Croatia (question about language was in 2001 population census questionnaire and it is one of questions in 2011 population census). --Domjanovich (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten. It would be interesting to gather the data on how many persons actually declare their language as 'Serbo-Croatian', though I don't have the time at the moment. No such user (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would. (I`ll try to find it. If I find it, it will be for Croatia only since that information is only accessible to me.) --Domjanovich (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To determine the number of people who speak the Serbo-Croatian language, all one has to do is add up the number of people in that part of the world who are listed in national censuses as speaking "Serbian," "Croatian," "Bosnian," or "Montenegrin." Tell me, if the United States passed a law in which it declared the nation's official language was "United Statesian," would the rest of the world list our language as such, or would they continue to recognize the fact that "United Statesian" is English, and list it as such in reference books? They would recognize our right to call our language whatever we wanted to, but in their reference books, it would still be called what it's been called for a millennium. And the same goes here. There was a Serbo-Croatian language long before there was South Slav ultranationalism that made all of you insist on your own name for the same language. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be important to you to determine this if you came to England and wouldn´t understand the forming of sentences, words, or pronaunciation of some words, and that is what comes on line of dispiute when someone says "It is the same language". And you don´t get it because your english language is almost 90% same as all english spoken over planet Earth, but when that ratio would fall below that (around 70% to 80%) I think you would have something to say about that. --Domjanovich (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The ratio is below 70 percent for several regional dialects of Arabic, but they're all still called Arabic. The only one that has a different name is Maltese, because Maltese is almost as much Italian as it is Arabic. But that's beside the point because the correlation between any dialect of Serbo-Croatian, compared with any other, is not below 70 percent. Jsc1973 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• From this statement I can only say that your not on right lead because Arabic is not English or SC, Arabic language is to closley corelated whith religion, Arabic is language of religion more than language of nations, modificiations/dialects of Arabic are more related to historical development of the same (one) language on different areas, than on difference of two languages.--Domjanovich (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to bump in like this, but I felt I had to comment on this because I find it interesting and somewhat peculiar. Domjanovich, I think that your comment about Arabic language comes from the presumption that Arabic is one language that developed on different areas while Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, etc. are different languages - perhaps from the start. If a person turned it otherwise - that Arabic is one "macrosomething" consisted of several sublanguages/variants/languages like Serbo-Croatian supposedly is, than the situation with Arabic language would be somewhat similar, I think, as now is the situation with Serbo-Croatian. My opinion is that your argumentation relies on the hypothesis that if members of different nations/ethnicities speak a similar language then they actually speak different languages (perhaps because of potentially different historical development), but I am not sure everybody would agree with such a hypothesis. Anyway even if the historical development of those languages/variants is different that doesn't mean that the language is different. There must be something in the mutual intelligibility argument, I think. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nice from you to bump in, because you put the piont on what I was talking about. Because of this hypothesis that everyone doesn´t agree whith it, everything remains the same, even if it is not the same in real state of mind when you put all in order, all of that as result of presumption made long time before. Arabic language would instantly disolve in several languages when it wouldn´t be so closely related whith religion, and when it would be more demograficly/ethnicly influenced, and no one could say anything to say that languages made from it aren´t different or separate. Don´t you think so? --Domjanovich (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry because I don't understand some of your words. What do you mean by everything remains the same, even if it is not the same in real state of mind when you put all in order, all of that as result of presumption made long time before. As far as dissolution of Arabic language is concerned I'm not sure I would agree with you that Arabic would dissolve in several languages given the condition you mention, because I'm not certain how this would happen. Neither am I certain that it hasn't already happened. Also, why wouldn't you look at Arabic as several languages already given the current situation that several spoken varieties of Arabic aren't mutually much intelligible - or as the article states some are even incomprehensible to the speaker of another? It seems to me as if you apply different criteria when comparing variants of Serbo-Croatian with variants of Arabic. Perhaps I am missing something. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I am going to jump in to my own mouth because I said that information was not published, it was! [1] This is table of languages spoken in Croatia by native speakers. It is data gathered as answer to question Nr. 22 [2] of 2001 population census questionnaire in Croatia and by it 2 054 (hrvatsko srpski) + 4961 (srpsko hrvatski) persons declared that they speak by native SC. --Domjanovich (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to put this reference(s) in article? --Domjanovich (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps as a comparison to some Yugoslav-era censi data where it would be of interest, to illustrate how these "different languages" keep popping out in line with the appearance of statist apparatus sustaining them. We don't want to give readers a false impression that only those who actually declare to be speaking SC on some piece of paper are the ones actually speaking it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, "statist apparatus"! Ivane Štambuče now you claim that Hrvatski zavod za statistiku is publishing artificial data? OK. I think this self proclamation of people is most relaible source of existance SC/C/S language. You claim that you speak SC. Then you do. I claim that I don´t speak SC (I speak some other (croatian) language). Then I don´t speak it. Or is it possibile that the language you speak no longer exists in any form whith 7015 native speakers, and mine whith over 4,5 milion does. --Domjanovich (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You speak the same language as Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, regardless whether you believe it or not, regardless whether you call it by the same or different name. You are an individual and as such have no influence of the emergent phenomena such as a natural language, which is created and which evolves spontaneously by the nongvernable interaction of its speakers. How much useless the results compiled by DZS are is in fact confirmed by the fact that they actually provided both Srpskohrvatski and Hrvatskosrpski as a mother-tongue option to choose from, and that all beside the options for srpski, hrvatski and bosanski. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to comment on this. There was a (population) census in Croatia during 2011. On that census, one question was about native tounge. "Croatian" was the only one offered option. After I declared myself to be a Croat, I was not asked about my mother tounge (which would be Serbocroatian) but it was noted that my mother tounge is "Croatian". Therefore, census data should not be interpreted as Domjanovich does. Although I consider Serbocroatian to be my mother tongue, I call it very often simply "Croatian". However, I still keep in my mind that "Croatian" is just one variant of Serbocroatian.31.147.107.88 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ivane Štambuče, this is not answer to my question, this is reply to my proclamation, please don´t do that because it changes nothing about that statement. Again you state that DZS publish artificial data?! About question given in census; form of questionnaire is made to be simple, and in country where is aspected that most of people (over 80%) speaks one (croatian) language it is not posibile to put the list of 20 languages and made questionnaire simple. About "hrvatskosrpski" and "srpskohrvatski"; it is weird to me that you are not familiar whit the fact that there is language called "hrvatskosrpski" - which means croatian language influenced whith serbian language in oposite of "srpskohrvatski" - which means serbian language influenced whith croatian. Why? I recon because two diferent languages influenced on eachother because they are diferent. Since (you say that) DZS provides artificial information that means anything and everything. --Domjanovich (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You might as well give up. You can pretend that you speak a different language from the Serbs all you want in Croatia, just like the government of Moldova likes to pretend they don't speak Romanian. The rest of the world isn't going to buy it, though. Jsc1973 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I really need to give up to try to explaine anything someone like you. Why do you put everything out of perspective, trying to explaine something/everything whith state of mind of "rest of the world" (obviously refering to native english speakers only like they are mandatory to resolve any issue that is ever come in question in the world). --Domjanovich (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Domjanovich, we go by reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources demonstrate that Serbian and Croatian are one language in all but name. The fact that many SC speakers do not accept that is of course relevant for their sociolinguistic identity as separate languages, but it's irrelevant for language classification. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do US-ians have a theory on why Serbian and Croatian are one language? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? — kwami (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That what is irrelevant for language classification, has made on wiki talk pages of those languages history (questions of dispiute) worth of new original research made by (referenced) reliaible linguists. Not for SC but for every language by it self and reason to made a general rewiew of their research results. Because this is becoming apsurde, talk pages miles long, few relevant conclusions, argumentation by sources made 150 years ago whith presumptions, prejustices, influences.... whithout any indications that informations we put in article are in reality correct. --Domjanovich (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dom, what is and is not a language is largely a matter of opinion. Opinions are not "right" or "wrong". We report on what is. For the majority of linguists – nearly all of them in the West – SC is a single language dialectologically, and only distinct languages sociolinguistically. Thus that is what we say. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment, Domjanovich, doesn't make any sense in English. --Taivo (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Kwami'last statement hits the nail on the head, and the article alreadzy explains that. So we're good. We should also keep the historical sociolinguistic dimension in mind and not look at the present day situation in isolation. Related languages and dialects are always converging and diverging. In the 7th century or so, there was a widespread 'Slavonization' of the Balkans, and a subsequebnt divergence toward more localized forms as each area developed its own Medieval state and constructed a more standardaized idiom. In the 19th & 20th century we again had convergence - sociological, ideological and political. Now there is again a divergent stage. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The first time this convergence happened was in the 19. century with the birth of the Yugoslav idea. Never before in history (from the 7. century which marks the coming of croat people to this area where we are now, or 8. and 9. century when serbian people came) there was any recording about a unified language. Also it should be noted that SC wasn't recognised in SFRJ as a formal language, because every state had the right to use their own language in communication. The only language that was in use in all republics was "croatian *OR* serbian" meaning both languages were equally important. It also should be noted that neither of the languages developed in the same conditions: while croat language was mainly influenced by the italian, german and hungarian languages, serbian was primarily influenced by turkish and bulgarian. As far as grammar is concerned - well of course the grammar will be similar, we all come from the same ethnic group. But if the argument is valid here, it should also be valid for Belarus and Russia, for example. It's the same situation, but there we have 2 different and distinct languages? And I'd say there is an even more resemblance between belarussian and russian language, then there's between croatian and serbian. Someone here talked about english and the variants of english. True, it's the same language, and yet there are many differences between US english, british english and australian english that they are practically independent from one another. I really don't see the point in creating something that never existed and lamenting. Serbo-croatian would exist if and only if croats or serbs were a subset of each other, thus being the same people but with different dialects where both groups are of equal size. Here, this is not the case. Serbs and croats are two different people, we don't have the same history, we weren't influenced by the same foreign countries or by the same church for that matter. ibazulic (talk) 2:27, 23 July 2011 (CET)

• Not true. Only a fanatical U.S., British or Australian nationalist would try to argue that their version of the English language was "practically independent" from the others. Yes, there are differences in local dialects, and different words here and there, and we can never agree on how to spell colo(u)r. But I have no problem communicating with a Briton or an Australian, or reading texts in those dialects of English. No one in their right mind would call any of those dialects a separate language. Jsc1973 (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is the segment of the Constitution of the Socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia, article number 246: All languages of all nationalities or ethnic groups and their writing systems are *equal* on the teritory of Yugoslavia. All republic languages are officialy in use in Socialist federative republic of Yugoslavia.

I know, the translation is poor, because it's almost 3 AM, but it does show that even in communist era, the difference between croatian and serbian languages existed and was noted. (talk) 2:52, 23 July 2011 (CET)

No, it doesn't. There is not a word there about "Serbian" and "Croatian" and their linguistic relationship. It's just vague political speech, not an accurate linguistic appraisal based on any scholarship whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1st of all, I'm not here to start any flame wars, but to objectively state the facts as they are. While the Yugoslavia existed, our parents probably spoke Serbo-Croatian. But with the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian also divided into several languages, because, if it hadn't, woudln't children in Croatia and Serbia learn Serbo-Croatian in school? You could try to reason with this and say "yes, but they all sound the same". This might be the case, but you could also say that for almost all languages of Northern Europe. You can't say that Croatians are being nationalists because they learn Croatian in school, that would mean their government is nationalist.

For example:

First I'll have some bread and milk for breakfast, then I'll go to the cinema, and then I'll have rice with tomato ketchup and a carrot for lunch. I will watch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Croatian: Prvo ću doručkovati kruh i mlijeko, a zatim ću ići u kino, a onda ću ručati rižu s kečapom od rajčice i mrkvu. Gledat ću Harry Potter i Plameni Pehar.

Serbian: Prvo ću da doručkujem hleb i mleko, a zatim ću da idem u bioskop, a onda ću da ručam pirinač s kečapom od paradajza i šargarepu. Gledaću Hari Poter i Vatreni Pehar.

Altough the point of the Serbian sentence could be deciphered by a Croatian child, I can assure you that a Croat doesn't know what bioskop, pirinač or šargarepa mean. Now, this comparison of mine probably won't have any effect, but I wonder: when Croatia enters the EU in 2013, which language will be written in the entrance of the European Parliament? I think Croatian. --109.60.111.217 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.108.234.175, 30 September 2011

in the "demographics" paragraph, mention the croatian minority in austria's easternmost province of burgenland: In Austria's province Burgenland, there is a small but traditional croatian minority, speaking it's own burgenland-croatian dialect. See the "Burgenland" page.

80.108.234.175 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Untrue!

This language is not spoken in Croatia. 78.2.88.77 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LoL --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, persistent little anonymous nationalist. Wrong, but persistent. Sort of like that cockroach who won't eat the bait you've set out. --Taivo (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ovaj jezik se ne govori u Hrvatskoj" would be how the IP's sentence would look in the Croatian standard, while "Ovaj jezik se ne govori u Hrvatskoj" is how it would be written in the Serbo-Croatian standard prior to the 1990 split. Did you note the difference? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ај ноут д дифренс. Уан из ин "чакавска латиница", ди адер ин "кајкавска" латиница". Ор из ит "бошњачка/босанска" енд "црногорска"? Нау ит гот ми ол конфјузед. --biblbroks (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lijepo" and "lepo". Direktor, can you notice the difference? 78.2.88.77 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, no more difference than between English in Atlanta, Georgia and English in Dallas, Texas. Not much. --Taivo (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wtf? If they are similar that means they are the same languages?! That means that Slovenian is Serbian?! 93.137.54.242 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want an overview of what a language is, language is a good place to start. For more technical detail, see abstand language. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you want to teach someone what language is (and differences between two languages) than learn it/them. 93.137.54.242 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral linguists are fairly unanimous--Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are four mutually intelligible varieties of one single language divided by ethnic extremism. We call that one language "Serbo-Croatian" because it's easier to say than "non-Slovenian West South Slavic". Get over it and do something constructive with your time. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Uot's vid dis "lepo" end "lijepo"? I nou ov bout verienc in Srbien, Kroejšn, Bosnien end Montenegrin. If ju don't, den ju don't nou jor lenguidž det uel. Or du ju? --biblbroks (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Poznaš li ti biblbroks? "Lepo" se kaže u hrvatskom jeziku, ali to nije tzv. srpskohrvatski nego hrvatski ekavski govor štokavskog narječja (na području sjeverne Slavonije) ili hrvatski ekavski govor čakavskog narječja (na području Istre i Kvarnera). Razumiš? Or šud aj sej Get det? 78.3.45.62 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lepo" se kaže u hrvatskom jeziku, ali to nije tzv. srpskohrvatski nego hrvatski ekavski govor štokavskog narječja (na području sjeverne Slavonije) ili hrvatski ekavski govor čakavskog narječja (na području Istre i Kvarnera).

Ali Hrvatski književni jezik je proizašao iz štokavskog narječja. Ja sam mislio da se na wikipediji govori o književnim jezicima. Očito se prevarih. <sarcasm>Siguran sam da moja profesorica iz hrvatskog u gimnaziji, koja je studirala gramatiku i književnost hrvatskog jezika, nema pojma o tome kad kaže da srpsko-hrvatski ne postoji.</sarcasm> Kako to da onda u zagrebačkim gimnazijama ne učimo srpsko-hrvatski? Jedno je biti nacionalist, a sasvim drugo biti realan. S obzirom da sam rođen tijekom Domovinskog rata, siguran sam da ne znam kako je bilo prije, no ne slušam cajke i Tomphsona tako da nisam neki delikvent koji niš ne radi (bez uvrede onima koji vole cajke i Tomphsona). Zapravo sam odlikaš, no, oprostite mi najljepše Vas molim, na tome što smatram da Držić i Marulić nisu svoja djela pisali na srpsko-hrvatskom. Pozdrav.--109.60.111.217 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My humble translation: Term "Lepo" is used in Croatian, but that is not the so-called Serbo-Croatian but Croatian Ekavian speach of Shtokavian dialect (in the region of northern Slavonia) or Croatian Ekavian speach of Chakavian dialect (in the region of Istra and Kvarner Gulf). So you confirm my claim that "lepo" is Croatian? I really don't get it now: which language is "lijepo" then? --biblbroks (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn. Nisam znao da je tako lako praviti se glup. You get my words? Ever heard about dialect(s)? Jesi upoznat s terminom narječje? You understand what my last post means? Read it again, several times if it takes, maybe you'll understand. Until then, don't talk nonsense. 78.3.45.62 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Narječje" as in dialect? Or "govor" ("izgovor") as in speach/pronunciation/form? I am not sure about the English term though, but BCS(М) uses "govor" or "izgovor" for the Ikavian, Ijekavian (Jekavian) and Ekavian, and "dijalekat", "dijalekt", "naričje", "narječje", "narečje" for Chakavian, Kajkavian and Shtokavian. That is, more or less, AFAIK. How far do you, more or less, know? Ne mora se znati da je lako praviti se glup da bi se znalo da je još lakše praviti se lud. Isn't it? --biblbroks (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Kako samo mudro ideš sa teme. I usput izbjegavaš odgovor. Ali to ne umanjuje neistinitost tvoje izjave. Nego, da ja to skiciram. Ako stanovnik slavonske Podravine govori "lepo" znači li to da on priča srpskohrvatskim? Pošto ti je teško izreći (napisati) odgovor, ja ću reći. Ne, to znači da on priča ekavskim (iz)govorom štokavskog narječja. Dakle, hrvatski jezik; štokavsko narječje; ekavski govor. Is that clear enough? 78.3.45.62 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What answer have I avoided? I suppose you wanted to say that I avoided a question i.e. I have avoided answering. Right? Nije valjda neki tvoj odgovor bio lansiran ka meni a ja ga eskivirah? Čini mi se da nam u našem sporazumevanju ne valja ta kombinacija ijekavskog i ekavskog govora - da probamo ikavski? Mislim dok još koristimo štokavštinu. Or shall we try talking completely in Serbo-Croatian instead of Croatian? Anyway, how do you suggest to bridge this communication, not gap, but abyss? An abyss made by you knowing something because you're being sure `bout it, and by me lying `bout it because of you telling me what the truth is. --biblbroks (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think govor might be best translated as 'accent', as AFAIK it's a distinction of pronunciation rather than of vocabulary or grammar.

Anyway, the original claim that (Serbo-)Croatian is not spoken in Croatia is just silly. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There's the problem "I think...". You think. That means you are not sure, you don't know. Let me tell you instead. "Govor" can not be translated as "accent". Therefore, as far as you know is (kind of) misleading. "Govor" can be translated as "speech", and "accent" means "naglasak". This kind of article (and everyone else) shouldn't be based on "as far as I know" and "I think..." but on "I know" and "I'm sure". That is the major problem. When someone who is sure tells you how it is you call them unconstructive and silly. That are very valid arguments (notice the sarcasm). 78.3.45.62 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So, all Croatian linguists are wrong, because you "know" while they only "think". I think we've come across a larger problem here. Be sure to contact the Croatian Academy and inform them that Ijekavian is not a govor because you would not translate that as "accent" in English. I'm sure they'll find that a convincing argument as to how they should speak Croatian. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Govor" translates excellently and means "speech", plain and simple. The uses of the two are virtually identical. In English and Serbo-Croatian both, depending on the context the word "speech" can refer to an accent or dialect, e.g. "Southern speech is considerably different than that of New York." Also, I have to point out that IP's outbursts in Serbo-Croatian are quite offensive. I think this thread should be closed and deleted or archived per WP:NOTFORUM. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "speech" for that. The linguistic term is "accent", and I think that is probably the common expression as well. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, "accent" is a better term just as "naglasak" would be a better term in Serbo-Croatian, however the point I am making is that the word "govor"="speech" can potentially be used in such a capacity, i.e. to refer to an accent. I cannot emphasize enough that the two words are almost completely identical in meaning. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that a lot of our articles spoke of ijekavian and ekavian "speeches", which is terribly unclear. I've gone through and changed that to "accents". — kwami (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Za Boga miloga, if you're going to argue about the meaning of the word "speech", go somewhere else. Otherwise, use wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speech I usput, there's no definition of an "accent" there for the word speech, only speech as the ability to speak and speech as a message given by the e.g. politicians to the public. Not like anything of this matters, in about 100 years or so everyone will be speaking English and other languages will be forgotten IMO.--109.60.111.217 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish you were a bit slower, Kwami. While I'm not a native speeker of English, I find the word "accent" unacceptable in this context, as it first and foremost denotes stress, second a manner of speaking, and only marginally pronunciation of certain phoneme. A quick Google Books search shows that the most common term used to denote Ekavian, Ijekavian and Ikavian is pronunciation. "Ijekavian pronunciation" produces 187 GB hits, "Ijekavian speech" 33, and "Ijekavian accent"... mere 1. No such user (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See accent (linguistics). I've linked it in a few cases. An 'accent' is a variety less divergent than a dialect. The English equivalent to ijekavian–ekavian is perhaps the division into rhotic and non-rhotic accents, which get lots of hits under that term. Neither causes significant problems with comprehension, unlike Shtokavian–Kajkavian, and both cut across dialect boundaries. "Pronunciation" is overly ambiguous: it could mean just about anything.

I've found a nice summary in of all things Political discourse in transition in Europe, 1989–1991:

Serbo-Croat is usually divided into three dialects: štokavski, kajkavksi, and čakavski. ... the standard Štokavski dialect can be divided into three groups, or 'accents'. These are: ekavian, ijekavian, and ikavian.

Of course, if you're speaking of a writing system, 'accent' has a different meaning, as it does if you're speaking of stress or pitch. But when speaking of varieties of a language, this is what it means. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to back up that with something more than assertion. Why, then, none (well, I'll give you one) of the relevant literature uses the term "Ijekavian accent"? Let us not invent the terms when they are not necessary. I find the term "Ijekavian accent" alien and confusing. Particularly in the context where we also speak about pitch accent and stress accent and Shtokavian accentuation. We say that Old Shtokavian has three accents, and then talk about Ijekavian, Ekavian and Ikavian accents, and those are not the same. No such user (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that dialects are not divided into "pronunciations", so the article as it currently stands is factually wrong. What say we change the first instance to a link? So,

the dialects are divided into Ikavian, Ekavian, and Ijekavian accents, with the reflects of jat being /i/, /e/, and /ije/ or /je/ respectively.

That can't possibly be ambiguous. The rest we can leave as is. — kwami (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, deal. I could argue that the sentence above is not quite accurate, because jat reflex division can be analyzed as either orthogonal to dialectal division (e.g. there are Chakavian subdialects with ekavian and ikavian reflex), or applicable only to Štokavian. However, it's somewhat nitpicking. No such user (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. I don't mind nitpicking, since we are an encyclopedia, but I don't follow. As it currently stands, we speak of "the dialects" being so divided, without specifying which; Chakavian is so divided, even if not always presented that way, Kajkavian I think is not, Shto is, so there's no factual inaccuracy, is there? — kwami (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian - POV-tag

This article will be renamed to appropriate modern standards actually existing, namely B/S/C. Serbo-Croatian is a biased communist relic, and most importantly defunct. Nowhere is it recognized as official and nowhere can you tick it in a consensus form. MarcRey (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to inform everyone that I now control a user account on which you may contact me. I did also add a POV-tag yesterday which was promptly removed without further notice by user:Kwamikagami. The fact that user:Kwamikagami and a couple of others have had this issue on the table before does not make it a closed subject protected from further scrutiny. Once the rights of my new account have been updated I will extend the POV-tag to the Serbo-Croatian language article which in reality should redirect to a page with either of the following titles: 'Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian' or 'official language standards of former Yugoslavia'. If any user conflicts with the POV-tag (a right of Wikipedia editors) I shall file a request for the supervision of the articles in question and ultimately a lock-down if necessary. MarcRey (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You say you've been here 7 yrs, but you are apparently unfamiliar with WP naming conventions. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English. The common name in English for this language is "Serbo-Croatian". There really is no other. Nobody says "I speak Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian" or "I speak official language standards of former Yugoslavia". Until they do, those titles are not appropriate. (And of course the latter is incorrect because it's the wrong topic as well.) — kwami (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What people choose to call things on a colloquial level is irrelevant in encyclopedic contexts, but if you wish to lead the discussion on that level I am convinced no one claims to speak Serbo-Croatian any longer, nor B/S/C, but either Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian separately. Neither have I come across the use of "Serbo-Croatian" in any official setting for the past 10 years. WP:COMMONNAME would not justify incorrect, and outdated, usage despite a supposed occurrence of wide-spread use. If it had, many of the articles on Wikipedia could be given the slang counterparts which are definitely more frequent in everyday language. The POV-tag has been once more removed. If this repeats for more than three times I will be urged to proceed with matters at the office of bureaucrats. To clarify, I am not here to distance the Bosnian language from either Croatian or Serbian, they are the one and same language. But it has been agreed that Serbo-Croatian is an invalid term, and communist relic, which fails to shed objective light on the language of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians/Bosniaks, namely excluding the latter. This has been the cause of armed conflict and the abolishment of Serbo-Croatian as an official standard some 20 years ago. MarcRey (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not "slang", and it has not been "agreed" that it is invalid. You say it's one language, but we need a name for that language. The only name in current use is "Serbo-Cratian". Yes, people may avoid saying it in many situations, but when they do speak of it, that's the name they use. And I don't see how its a "Communist" relic when English usage dates to the 18th century. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to English usage of "Serbo-Croatian" in the 18th century? —Pepsi Lite (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Morfill, 1883, Slavonic Literature. Quoted in the OED.

Sorry, I'm getting dysnumeric. 19th century. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What name did they use for this language before 1883? —Pepsi Lite (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Illyrian", AFAIK. I'm not sure. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Croats used to call this language "Illyrian", never Croatian before 1850. Let us call it "Serbian phonology" then everybody will be happy! —Pepsi Lite (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, calling it Serbian phonology would be more accurate than Serbo-Croatian, because unlike Serbo-Croatian Serbian exists. MarcRey (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It has come to be a slang since it is defunct, abolished, disqualified. Call it what you like. And it is preposterous to maintain that a subjective , unofficial, term should be used simply because there is no better way of naming these languages. This article could have been as easily named Phonology of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian but I suspect some users insist on Serbo-Croatian since it efficiently omits Bosnian and portrays it as sprung out of Serbian and Croatian. Fishy business. Pepsi, it would not matter if he found a source proving the usage of Serbo-Croatian in the 18th (or rather 19th) century since it would not have been standardized or official anyways. And definitely not justifying the omission of Bosnian from the name. In the 18th century, for example, Bosnia enjoyed a greater independence than Serbia or Croatia and the Bosnians (Muslims) surely did not choose to refer to their language as either Serbian or Croatian. Bottom-line is, the term Bosnian language (as well as Serbian and Croatian) has been in the scope for several hundreds of years before Serbo-Croatian ever saw daylight due to nasty political bias. MarcRey (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if I have an opinion that is incompatible with your political goals, then I must be in some kind of conspiracy against you?

Your opinions about a word are not evidence, and that is not our naming policy. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is funny you consider the integrity of the Bosnian language to be a political issue, which in turn is quite revealing of your discrediting attitude towards the originality of the Bosnian language. Views which do not come as any surprise from someone who eagerly wishes to introduce a new (or discontinued, depending on how you wish to observe it) classification standard on Wikipedia. To be frank, your last comment was not of any contribution to the discussion and I take it as a sign of your unwillingness to objectiveness. In due time I will present as part of this discussion contemporary sources (apparent axioms) on why your actions are completely biased and ludicrous in the year of 2012. I suspect many well-read non-Yugoslavian people, predominantly from the western civilization, would not have any difficulties to penetrate the error of your editorial claims, but unfortunately 95% of the users editing ex-Yugoslavian articles are ex-Yugoslavians themselves. In the meantime the POV-tag returns. I shall immediately withdraw my demands for this tag if the current title of the article is replaced with the appropriate one: "Phonology of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language". Inside of the article you may gladly explain that the previous classification for these languages was Serbo-Croatian, and that this term enjoys some continued use. Naturally, this discussion also goes for the Serbo-Croatian article and I will paste this discussion over there in a short while. MarcRey (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@MarcRey. Calling any aspect of the Serbo-Croatian language "Serbian" is just nonsense, since both Croats (such as Ljudevit Gaj) and Serbs (such as Vuk Karadzic) participated in its standardization in the second half of the 19th century, and both Bosniaks, Croats, Serbs, and Montenegrins all use it. What must be understood here is the numerical disproportion between Serbs and Croats: Serbs outnumber Croats by about 2:1. Hence, some Serbs often liked (and still do) to refer to Serbo-Croatian as simply "Serbian". That of course, is but one small step apart from the Greater-Serbianism of the 1990s wars, which claimed that basically all Croats are really Serbs "but just don't realize it" (to quote Vojislav Seselj's deposition at the ICTY). In fact the Serbian Radical Party, which (while it is kept out of power by a western-supported liberal coalition) has more seats in the Serbian parliament than any one individual party, still officially maintains as part of its policy that Croats and Bosniaks are unwitting Serbs of different religious denominations (Catholicism and Islam respectively).

The point I am making is that in the 19th century up until the 1940s (and in good part all the way up to the 1990s) Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks considered they were in essence one nation. The difference is that Serbian nationalist factions (though not all Serbs!) considered this to be the "Serbian" nation and language, due to their numeric predominance, while Croats preferred new umbrella terms like "Slavonic" (pre-1840s) "Illyrian" (up to 1918), "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" (1918-1929), "Yugoslav" (1929-1992) etc. It is important to note, however, that all these terms: "Slavonic", "Illyrian", "Serbo-Croato-Slovene", "Yugoslav" (and even sometimes "Serbian" in the context of some Serbian nationalist linguists), all refer to one and the same language who's most common name in English today is "Serbo-Croatian". That this is due to its usage in SFR Yugoslavia throughout the second half of the 20th century is beyond doubt, however that is an entirely irrelevant fact with regard to WP:COMMONNAME and the title of this article.

As for the Serbo-Croatian language being "abolished", I think you will find that scientists all round the world could not care one whit what petty declarations Balkans politicians and linguists may publish to spite their neighbors. And it is the consensus in the scientific community all-round the world that determines Wikipedia content. You may also find that only in the Balkans do politicians consider themselves empowered to "abolish" and "declare" languages as they feel necessary, and that such a ridiculous practice is virtually unheard-of elsewhere. The "Bosnian" language established by the Bosniak ethnic group is no less a mere standard of Serbo-Croatian than "Serbian" and "Croatian". The fact that you may personally find the most common English name for the language "offensive" is nobody's concern but yours. -- Director (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to when Vojislav Šešelj claimed that "all Croats are really Serbs". This is the first time I hear about it. —Pepsi Lite (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone.. um, not that its relevant, but Vojislav Šešelj is the current leader of the Serbian Radical Party, on trial on charges of genocide at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

@Pepsi Lite, I recommend you review his ICTY deposition on YouTube [3][4][5] (particularly the last link) where he discloses his party's position on the "union of all Serbs" and its intention of "convincing Croats they are Serbs". To be precise, he does not consider "all Croats" to be Serbs, he considers the vast majority of Croats to be Serbs (those who speak Shtokavian), while he considers those who speak Kajkavian to be "actually Slovenes". He also considers Chakavian to be the "real" Croatian language, but he does not state that the Chakavian-speakers are "real Croats". Chakavian, of course, is spoken by very, very few people since its sort of archaic (my grandfather spoke it, my father knew a few words, I know even fewer). In this he is entirely in-line with Vuk Karadzic. Who was the most prominent of the 19th century Serbian intellectuals insisting that the common South Slavic language is, in fact, "Serbian".

His views are actually rather interesting, and he's not altogether wrong... I do agree that Yugoslavs are on the whole a single nation with a single language, but I'm afraid I disagree with him on the issue of the name of said nation/language. I do not consider myself "Serbian" :) -- Director (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

As an addendum I will write-down the list of historical terms used for this same language. It is a rather complex issue since it is intertwined with the impossible quagmire of Balkans politics. But here goes, for the record:

• "Slavonic" or "Slovinic". Essentially meaning simply "Slavic", these terms are used prior to the late 18th century. "Dalmatian" [6] was another term. These terms do certainly apply to modern Serbo-Croatian, but since they'tr not strictly defined, whether they apply also to the precursors of modern Slovene and Macedonian varies.
• "Illyrian language" is a term derived from the (erroneous) 18th century notion that South Slavs are in fact descendants of the ancient Illyrians (note Napoleon's Illyrian Provinces). The use of the term "Illyrian language" was made popular by the Illyrian Movement of the early 19th century. The Illyrian Movement was based in Croatia (part of Austria-Hungary at the time) and was led by Croatian intellectuals (though members of the movement of course considered themselves "Illyrians"). This term does certainly apply also to Slovene (many Slovenes were prominent members as well), and probably Macedonian as well.
• "Serbian language". Parallel with "Illyrian" (in the mid-19th century), the term "Serbian" was used by Serbian intellectuals in the (politically separate) Principality of Serbia itself. In Serbia, however, the Illyrian movement was also very popular, so both terms were used. This term did not apply to Slovene, but did apply to what is now Macedonian speech.
• "Croatian or Serbian language". Since the Illyrians basically demanded a union of all South Slavs ("Illyrians") into a separate new country, they were not very popular with Austrian authorities, so they were banned and eventually petered-out. The term "Croatian or Serbian" was used officially by Austro-Hungarian authorities throughout (all the way to the dissolution of Austria-Hungary). In the now-Kingdom of Serbia the term "Serbian" eventually gained predominance. However, no distinction was made by anyone between "Croatian" and "Serbian" (or Bosnian). This term did not apply either to Slovene or Macedonian.
• "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" (1918-1929) and "Yugoslav language" (1929-1941). A South Slavic state was founded after WWI. Between 1918 and 1929, the state was called "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes". In 1929 it was renamed into "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", and held that name up until its destruction by the Axis during WWII in April 1941. Consequently, the names used in this period were "Serbo-Croato-Slovene language" and "Yugoslav language" after 1929. It was also the official policy of the state in this period that all South Slavs (apart from Bulgarians) are one nation, also named "Serbo-Croato-Slovene nation" (1918-1929) and "Yugoslav nation" (1929-1941). "Serbian" was now abolished as a term for the whole language (it was only to be used again in the 1990s by Serbian nationalist radicals).
• "Serbo-Croatian language" (1945 on). After the war the new socialist Yugoslavia was established. Where the expelled royalists insisted there was one nation, the new Yugoslav authorities established five: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and Macedonians. For the first time, Slovene was separated as a language, while a new, separate, Macedonian language was also declared. The Yugoslav authorities did not recognize the Muslims in Bosnia as a separate nationality just yet, while Montenegrins identified culturally with the Serbs very closely - and so the language was now named the "Serbo-Croatian language". Later, the Bosnian Muslims were declared the sixth nation of Yugoslavia. The Bosnian Muslims were not yet called Bosniaks, as they are now: they were referred to up until the 1990s as the "Muslims by Nationality". No insistence was made to rename the common language in accordance with this change (into the "Croato-Muslim-Serbian language" or something of the sort).

Essentially in response to the revival in the late 1980s of old Serbian nationalist claims that "Serbian" is actually the name for the common language, and that Croats and Bosnian Muslims are thus also really "Serbs", Croatian and Bosnian nationalists (after coming to power in Croatia and Bosnia), declared their languages separate from Serbian entirely. This is now also taking place in Montenegro.

The Bosnian "Muslims by Nationality", it must be noted, also declared themselves to be Bosniaks in the early 1990s. Serbs of course also changed the name of the language to "Serbian language", but among Serbs it is very much a matter of political opinion whether that term refers also to Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, or whether it really is separate from them. The other nations, of course, consider it nothing short of a threat to their national independence to make the claim that they share a common language with the Serbs. The very notion, while obviously accurate, is absolutely odious to Croats, Bosniaks, and to a lesser degree to Montenegrins (Serbs and Montenegrins were on the same side in the '90s wars).

As far as the history of the language is concerned, the one real, major change than needs to be recorded is the shifting policies on whether Slovene and Macedonian are part of the greater language. Whenever the languages were merged with Serbo-Croatian (the Illyrian movement, Kingdom of Yugoslavia), they were treated as dialects. The Slovene language and the Macedonian language were only definitively broken away by the communist authorities after WWII. To be sure, before this juncture, the standardized official language was really that one which we refer to as "Serbo-Croatian" today. Slovene and Macedonian were considered to be provincial variants, (and they are very similar to SC).

These were all different names for one and the same language, that's the crucial point. A language that could not settle on a name - simply because the people who speak it do not have a name for themselves they all agree on and can identify with. We tried "Illyrians", "Serbs", "Serbo-Croato-Slovenes", and "Yugoslavs" thus far - none were accepted by the people in general. "Serbo-Croatian" is simply the latest of the many names we tried to use for the language, as we can see, it is also very far from perfect and is unacceptable to many, and so it goes on. On Wikipedia however, what matters is English language usage. Apologies for the TLDR post :) -- Director (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoah, looks like I might've torpedoed the discussion with my massive posts, apologies. :) -- Director (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the only way to settle this is to call S-C "north-central-Balkan language not mutually intelligible with Dracula" - there, that should shut-up-the-nationalists. Glad to be of help. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How dare you call us Croats Balkanites! Croatia is not in the Balkans, we're civilized, Austro-Hungarian folks! xD Nice try, though. -- Director (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Innovations

"However, the literature still insists on the genetic unity of 'Central South Slavic', which, in this sense, is most commonly called 'Serbo-Croatian'. By that it is implied that 'Central South Slavic' is a phenomenon of the same level like, for example, Russian or Czech language, which is most certainly incorrect; in the case of other Slavic languages we can determine common innovations in all of their dialects (and in them alone). The latter is impossible in 'Central South Slavic'.

All that actually means that Croatian language has a double identity: as a standard language, it originated from genetically the same dialect (štokavian) as other 'Central South Slavic' dialects, but the genetic origin is not important for determining the identity of a standard language. In the genetic sense, Croatian does not represent a valid classification unit because Kajkavian and Čakavian are equally 'Croatian' as Štokavian. That itself means that it is nonsensical to talk about the genetic unity of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian in the sense of a language spoken by all Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins. Common ancestral language, from which all Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin idioms (and only them) originated, simply never existed."

This is an excerpt from 'R. Matasović: Poredbeno povijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika'. It would be nice if the points from the first paragraph were incorporated into the article, in order to clarify the linguistic situation to the interested reader.93.138.79.205 (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)