Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Statistics

Someone gave this link [1] as a source for the number of "21 million speakers".
Where did they get that number?
Croatian census 2001 [2] shows 4,961 declared speakers of "Serbian-Croatian". And there 2,054 persons that make difference with that, and they declare their language as "Croatian-Serbian".
Serbian census 2002 (old links [3] [4]) [5] shows no declared speakers of "Serbian-Croatian" nor "Croatian-Serbian". Kubura (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, should be 16M.[6] — kwami (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the first link Kubura mentioned is counting not only populations of B&H, Cro, Sr and MN but also the various South Slavic minorities in other countries. And Kwamis link seems to be counting only the populations of B&H, Cro and Sr (although I'm not very sure about that one). Basically if someone identifies themselves as talking Serbo-Croatian or not, they still technically are talking that language as long as they attended primary schools in any of these countries. So for the purposes of this article all of the numbers in the Serbian, Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin, Croato-Serbian and Bosnian categories mentioned in Kubura's other links should be added up. Or are you really suggesting a kid growing up in one of our countries is quatrilingual (I think I just made up that word, but it sounds cool, take that all you bilingual kids)? Since it's pretty obvious we understand each other perfectly and with minor efforts can even change our dialects if we practice or have the incentive to do so (I for one after studying in Rijeka started talking with a lot of Chakavian phrases). 89.172.46.57 (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The figure for 16M is for all countries. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it proves that [7] gave wrong information.
It's just Kwami's personal point of view.
National statistics, first-hand information are explicitly showing the true information.
Argument about "easy understandable" is not the argument. Slavic languages are easy to learn for other speakers of Slavic languages. Slovaks learn Croatian much quicker than native English speakers. Even the grannies in Croatia don't have problem learning Polish or Belorussian. They learn it much easier than English. Kubura (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are around 16,500,000 Serbo-Croatian speakers. The term "Serbo-Croatian" naturally encompasses all Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian language speakers. You guys can probably stop trying to establish that its spoken by 200 people or whatever nonsense you're getting at here. The source is valid and relevant and certainly supersedes any politicized publication from Serbia or Croatia - this is the English Wikipedia. It has been conclusively established on this talkpage that the majority of linguists do not recognize those three languages as separate. Frankly I don't know what the guys from WikiProject Languages are waiting for... the only talk we ever hear on this talkpage is about grannies and how Ukranian is just as mutually intelligible as Serbian or some other unsubstantiated nonsense.

Kubura I know you probably feel very strongly about this, just like the majority of Croats admittedly do. Let me ask you this, though: why does the Croatian television translate Ukranian for its viewers, and even Slovene or Macedonian, but not Bosnian, Serbian, or Montenegrin? Could it be that their viewers understand the languages without translation? Could it be that if they did try to "translate" Bosnian they'd be laughed at by the whole country? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Even the grannies in Croatia don't have problem learning Polish or Belorussian. - I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. Polish and Belarusian are very different from Serbo-Croatian. Polish itself is the most divergent Slavic languages of all and no (Serbo-)Croatian speaker is able to understand a word of spoken Polish without previous exposure/training. Please don't spread misinformation. Yes lots of Slavic languages are mutually intelligible to some degree, especially those from the same group (South, West, East), but they've been diverging for more than a thousand years now, and are as mutually different at least as major Germanic or Romance languages are from one another. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Director: The time of totalitarisms and their totalitaristic pseudo-languages has gone. You and your wiki activities will not be helpful for rebirth of "SRC". You are wasting your time... Better to check what the guys in the Croatian and Serbian wikis are writing about that subject.That´s much more ecyclopedic that that what you wrote there during the last months... --Croq (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

LoL :) What in the world are you talking about? And the day anyone starts looking to Croats and Serbs for guidance on nationalist issues will be a sad day indeed... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kubura - "easy understanding"? Are you kidding me? It's complete and perfect mutual intelligibility without the need for speakers of Croatian to formally learn Serbian/Montenegrin/Bosnian or vice versa. Something you don't have between Croatian and Ukranian, or even Croatian (especially the non kajkavian dialects) and Slovenian. So please get a grip lol, nationalist ideas can only go so far, they can't (no matter how hard they try) alter reality. Director's translating example perfectly illustrates why these "four languages" are in fact one with slight variations. 83.131.59.10 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Director: The whole world saw what Yugoslaw nationalism and their "Yugoslaw Army" did during 1990ies. Democrtacy has won, Yugounitarism has lost. bye bye--Croq (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

83.131.59.10 sells old Yugounitarist claim. "understand the languages without translation"?
Yeah, wright, like expressing the wish to order the carrot soup. "Naručit ćemo juhu od mrkve" is in Croatian and in Serbian is "Poručićemo supu od šargarepe" (or you find "Će poručimo" as Croatian?).
If you find this as "unimportant", "no big deal", you're wrong. Kubura (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

1. Result of the census in Croatia 2001. We shoud put the number of SC speakers out of the article. The citation of this census is a proof tthat this number cannot be right and that as the people know very well which language they speak.--Croq (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Citation of not english sources: No more removal of eg. german sources who show that this article is POV--Croq (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All that is necessary to explain this has already been said. And anyway there is no amount of text we can write here that will avail to counter nationalist preconceptions grounded in the blind worship of the "Holy Croatian Language". (Yes, that's how some like to call it. :) Trust me folks, no point at all.

I'll be blunt since this is just getting downright stupid.

1. Forget it.

2. Cherry-picked, misrepresented sources inserted incorrectly contrary to consensus to push a silly POV will be removed without fail or exception.

Have a nice day :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@Director, who speaks hear about any holy language? Do you call it like this? Or who does it? I never heard that. You alsway repeat phrases about "Balkan nationalists", don´t you have any other arguments? It´s a little boring. Are the 98 percent of people all nationalists and the two thousands are the good guys who declared in the way that Director likes? Why do you remove all the edits and sitations who dont agree with your pont of view? --Croq (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Any edits you attempt to push into the article without achieving full consensus on the talkpage (WP:BRD) will be reverted instantly and without fail. Revert-warring to push your edits will get you blocked, I assure you. Frankly, I am sure I am not the only one who is amazed you're still around after the repeated insults and the incessant edit-warring of the past week. I shall have to devote more time it seems to putting an end to this nonsense.

Please, feel free to discuss - just not with me, I know better. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Director says that he knows it better?! That ´s why you have chosen this name ?? Interesting style of discussing.--Croq (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Is the neutrality of the article disputed? Of course it is. It's about the Balkans. It seems everything about the Balkans is disputed. As such, the NPOV tag is utterly meaningless. Let's not get into edit wars over such minor points. It's not going to hurt to leave it up for a while, and then if Croq does no better in presenting his case than he has up till now, we take it down again. — kwami (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No its not... its just Croq's objections (straight out of the 90s) without any arguments. Its silly to degrade the article in any way over no-account ideas that the number of speakers should be stated as being "2,000" or some such nonsense. I must admit I am amazed this isn't over by now. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Like Kwami I thought I'd just leave it there for awhile. I personally do think that the information of the survey would be very useful in this article (though it would be best if we could find a secondary source analyzing it or it would have to be worded very carefully to avoid WP:SYNTH). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Director you say that my objections are straight from 90ies. May I inform you that your style is like in the time of dictature 1945-1991. I think you were born a little too late... And by the way you can find a lot of reputable links that "Serbocroatian" was a semi unified and official language in Yugoslavia from 1945-1991. So where is the problem? It is semi-unified a historical language. --Croq (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Croq, please don't play stupid. You know that we all agree "Serbocroatian" was a semi unified and official language in Yugoslavia from 1945-1991. The problem is that it's also been the English name of the language of the Serbs and Croats since the 19th century. E.g., The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1888 edition, speaks of the Serbo-Croatian language as being the language of Hercegovina, the The universal anthology: a collection of the best literature... from 1899 speaks of Serbo-Croatian (literature), as does Macmillan's magazine of 1884 (vol. 49) and Transactions of the Philological Society of 1885, all well before the union of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in 1918. Morfill's Simplified grammar of the Serbian language of 1887 alternately calls the language 'Serbian' and 'Serbo-Croatian', and states that it is the language of the Kingdom of Serbia, Turkish Old Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Istria, Monenegro, Austrian Croatia, Slavonia, Syrmia, & part of Carniola, Banat, and South Hungary. He notes an earlier, unsuccessful attempt by Gaj to fuse "Slovenish and Serbo-Croatian". And although the term has fallen somewhat out of use, relatively speaking, it still is in common use, as we've shown you numerous times. Again, if you have a better name for the article, please provide one. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I am really surprised: everything that you wrote in this passus is from my point of view absoultely correct! But why is it not possible tomake the first passus more ore less like what you wrote there? Just a little bit of this what you wrote (like semi unified...oficial language in YU until 1991 and so on? In English literature this term is as is as you say - you are absolutely correct, but that mus be written in the article. Wiki means globalization of knowledge. So the english and also probably literature in other countries from the time before 1991 perhaps no more acutual.

If an stupid person as me reads that article in the present version, he thinks that this is the native language in the countries there. And now seem to consider that this is not truth. The name of the article is ok, but there mus be more aspects of that what this term means. So as I can understand not so bad in english but not abloe to write so good as you can. So please support this wiki project to have a good article. This present version is everything but NPOV. Also when you write the total number of speakters. Who know that how many people speak SC? It is POV to write 18 milions. The fact that it is based on neostokavian and that serbian and croatian are similar-similar as indonesian and malayan, -hindi and urdu, bulgarian and macedonian, norvegian and danish is absolutely no question. But it is not necesary to say that only "balcan nationalsts" are people who say that this language never existed and was a product of totalitaristic dictatures that tried to create new languages. --Croq (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Croq, I'm not saying you're stupid. I thought you were purposefully making an argument out of something we agree with, which I'd say is "playing (falsely) stupid". If you were not, my apologies.

Or, at least I think we agree. Because at the end you say the opposite again, claiming the language does not exist--or am I misreading you?

Yes, reading a foreign language as if it's your own can cause problems. Japanese and Swahili have borrowed many English words, which no longer mean the same thing as in English, and this can lead to misunderstanding.

Also, IMO language politics do not belong in the very beginning of the article. The most important aspects of a language belong at the top. Arguments over naming are not the most important thing. We already say at the end of the lede that the term SC is controversial, which IMO is where it belongs.

As for going into more detail, we already have a huge section--how much more do you want? As Chipmunkdavis said, please present your ideas here, and we can work on them until everyone is happy.

As for the population, this article is about the language of the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and Montenegrins. Therefore the speaking population is the number of Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and Montenegrins. That's pretty straightforward, just as the number of Slavic speakers is the total number of Russians, Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, .... As for the number of speakers who use any particular name, what does that have to do with it? It's the same language regardless, and in any case those figures are in the Serbian, Croatian, etc. articles, where they're most relevant. The language is called both SC and BCS. We can't have one figure for SC and a different figure for BCS; they're the same thing. As they say, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If we change the name of the article, that shouldn't affect the facts of the language.

Also, it would probably help if we are clear whether we mean an ausbau language or an abstand language. SC as an ausbau language was the official standard of Yugoslavia, and I agree, it would seem that it no longer really exists, and perhaps it never did (AFAIK it was a bi-standard, never a single, unified standard under Yugoslavia; I don't know about Gaj's era). I think we're clear about that. However, as an abstand language, it is the language that you and many of the other editors here speak; it's existed ever since the expansion of Shtokavian gave a unity to the Serbian and Croatian dialects that set them apart from Slovenian and Bulgarian. Of course, one can argue that there are no real dividing lines between the South Slavic dialects, so SC is imaginary, but by that argument Croatian is also imaginary, as are French, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish, and Russian. Should we say that Croatian, French, and Russian are "controversial", because some linguists say they "don't exist"? (If I looked hard enough, I could find linguists who say just that: that these are parts of dialect continuums, and so "don't exist" as discrete languages.)

— kwami (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

@I'm from the "1945-1991" period? Well if you mean my mindset is that of a time of comparative prosperity before the war and imbecilic destruction, when petty nationalism (laughable to any foreigner) was considered an affliction of the primitive and stupid, when courts of law were not a downright joke, when rock'n'roll was more popular than the primitive folk noise - then yes :). If you mean socialism - then no. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"laughable to any foreigner": I watched the news coverage of the destruction of Dubrovnik. I wasn't laughing.

"primitive and stupid": yeah, that's a little closer. I wouldn't be that polite. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Croq (and friends) I am tired of spamming on talk page of article Srpskohrvatski jezik on sh wikipedia and so.....

You are speaking about census in Croatia 2001 so I am having question.

In all official documents of Croatian citizens it is writen that birth state (država rođenja) is Croatia, but they are born in Yugoslavia. Can you please explain me how this is possible ??

My personal thinking is that population is saying "right" answer or in another words on question about language in census from 2001 they are saying that language is Croatian because this is "right" answer.

What is your thinking about that ?

Can somebody please stop, end discussion about Serbo-Croatian language before this will become cross wiki problem ?? --Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point, Croatian is an ethno-political variant of Serbo-Croatian. A person who speaks Croatian speaks Serbo-Croatian. Consider how silly it would be to claim that such a person speaks "four languages" (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin)... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kwami, we will surely find a way to make this article acceptable for both points of view: those who think that this language exists and those who think thatit never existed. And no, of course this aricle "Serbocroatian" The next three days I am a little handicapped with time, but let us work on that in the next time. @Director: your aggressive and chief-style is not the way I want to discuss with anybody. That´s not a discussion, you are behaving like a "Director". @Rijecina2: Don´t worry this will notbe a wiki problem. This discussion will help solve existing problems--Croq (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we'll present both points of view, that the Earth is flat and that it is round, that humanity is 4,000 years old and that we are primates, that the Serbo-Croatian language never existed and that it does. Democracy and fairness for all. :) User:Croq, it seems you have yet to discover that science is not a democracy, but rather a dictatorship of the scientific community, a "communist dictatorship" one might say... xD

For the millionth time: the idea that the language never existed is a minority point of view that exists in some Balkans countries due to the political developments of the past 15 years. It has been adequately described in the article. There is no way that this article will be rewritten to accommodate conspiracy theories. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Director, first of all: we are discussing here. Please don´t remove the NPOV tag as long as we are discussing. That is behaviour of vandalism. This is not your private website where you can write what you want. On wikipedia it is a little different --Croq (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For a million an oneth time: Director it´s unbelivable, but you are writing two wrong informations in one sentence: First of all Croatia is geographically -perhaps only in a small part - in the Balcans and about your lie that "only a minority in Balkans in the past 15 years denies SC" just read this (I will build in some citations from that in this article IDS Mannheim) --Croq (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But again, Croq, when people say that SC doesn't exist, they mean that the Yugoslav standard was never really a unified standard, but rather a political fiction, correct? But that's not what this article is about. This article is about the language of the Serbs and Croats, not the Yugoslav standard, which is merely one historical detail of the language. — kwami (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, but in the beginning of the article the countries are definied where this language is spoken and how many people do speak it. And as this is controversal that is the most significant point that is for me for the NPOV tag. But there is one more thing that I do not understand. We agree about a dialectcontinuum. The Dialectontinuum of the Southaslavic languages in the area between Slovenian in the north and Macedonian and Bulgarian in the south. So it is not logical when SC is only about Serbs and Croats, and in the Article it´s mentioned tahtit is spoken also MN and BiH. So isn´t it logical that SC is controversal and a politicla language. Isn´t it obvious that in the time when SC was created the name of the Montenegrin and Bossniac people were not mentioned? I think that it is no question that SC as a term exists. That´s why I think that "...and . Croats and Serbs.. should be removed, " -Croq (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't obvious to me at all. In the 19th century, people would write of the "Serbian" language, which was spoken by Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins, or of the "Croatian" language, spoken by the same. In order to be clear about this, they might call it "Serbo-Croatian" in English, and Hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika in Serbo-Croatian. That is, they might speak of the "Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) language" if the topic was the Kingdom of Serbia, and "Croatian (Serbo-Croatian)" if the topic was the province of Croatia. In other words, this was considered a single language that went by two names, but the two names did not mean they were two languages. It is by definition the native language of these peoples. Try translating the term 'SC' with naš jezik—does that make more sense? "Naš jezik is the native language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro." Unfortunately, the closest we have in English to naš jezik is "Serbo-Croatian", but naš jezik is the topic of this article.

"Naš jezik/nasz jçzyk/jazik nasz/nasz Język/" (pronounciation is very similar in all slavic languages) means "our language" also in other slavic languages like polish, macedonian, slovenian... So in my opinion it does not make so much sense. --Croq (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried. — kwami (talk)

In the broad sense, SC includes Shtokavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Torlakian. That is, it's a subset of South Slavic, excluding both Slovenian and Bulgarian. True, there is no absolute dividing line between SC and Slovenian or Bulgarian. But these dialects have influenced each other in a way they have not influenced Slovenian and Bulgarian, and therefore have a unity they do not share with Slovenian and Bulgarian. The same is true of all languages found in dialect continua: French, Spanish, Russian, Hindi, Thai, Malay, Mandarin, etc etc etc. None of them have absolute borders. If SC is not a real language, then Croatian is not a real language! After all, how can one possibly consider Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian to be a single language, and at the same time insist that Shtokavian is two languages? That's completely irrational.

But prople who are used the Croatian dialect Kajkavian understand very well Slovenian language. And surely it influenced each other as the people lived since centuries in the same state (Ausria-Hungary)... Bu I don´tknow why we talk about dielects. Like eleswehere the people are learning in school the literary language. And in Croatia it is Croatian, and in Serbia it is Serbian. Media, books etc. is written in the standard language. And that is not SC. --Croq (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we have separate articles on Croatian and Serbian for precisely that reason. As for Kajkavian and Slovenian, some refs would be nice, though it would surprise me if they haven't influenced each other to some extent. However, AFAIK, the BCSM dialects have influenced each other to a greater extent. At least, S and C have been considered a single language since the 19th century, and the Slovenian dialects have been considered a single language, but SC-Slovenian has not. — kwami (talk)

If Croatian were Chakavian and Kajkavian, and Serbian were Shtokavian and Torlakian, then I would have no problem with saying that they were distinct South Slavic languages. That is, western SS would consist of three languages, Slovenian, Croatian, and Serbian. But the Serbs and Croats who standardized their languages in the 19th century chose the same dialect. They are therefore not distinct languages! They are two ethnicities who share a language. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But the standardizadtion/unification was never finished. It is semi standardized. And there are about 30 % of different words. It´s no question that Croatian and Serbian spekers understand each other well, but it is not the same language. --Croq (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about standardization, so that is irrelevant. This article is not about the Yugoslav standard! Or at least, that is a mere detail. How many times must that be said? This article is not about the Yugoslav standard.

If we're going to consider only the standards, then S and C are based on the same dialect, and so by definition are the same language. Abstand language, of course. They are distinct ausbau languages, but then, that is what "standard" means, so that is already obvious. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If they can understand each other there's a strong argument it's the same language. And 30%? I doubt that. To put the understanding in perspective, friends from Australia can't often understand my friends from the USA, but they both speak English, just different dialects. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And in this case, they aren't even different dialects. The speech of Zagreb and Dalmatian Croatian is far more different from Standard Croatian than Standard Croatian is from Serbian. So the supercategory is supposed to be one language, but one of the branches of it is supposed to be two languages. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

POV that should be removed

..."and the native language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro..." 1. There does not exist a native language of countries but of people. --Croq (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 2..."was one of the official languages in former YU...--Croq (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Croq! This is the constructive work we need on the article. As for your point 1, I suggest changing it to "the native language of most people in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro." The most being there to account for Albanians and Hungarians and the like that live there.

Don't understand your point two. Where do you want that added? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He wants it in the past tense. It already is in the past tense (had served as).

Languages are found in countries. That is common wording. But you're right, Croq, we should be more specific: SC is not the only language of these countries. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly!--Croq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Don´t mention it Cip, but same as Mandarin it is not the native language in HR-BiH-MN-SRB. Perhaps you can write "...is a South Slavic and pluricentric language"... and about point two: The eistence ofthis language is heavily disputed. And even ifit ever existed it´s existence ended in 1991/1992. --Croq (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Also changed 'native' to 'primary'. (Didn't want 'official', because officially it goes under different names; there may be other terms which are better.)

Point two: You still do not understand what this article is about. Again, it is not about the Yugoslav standard! Let me try that again: This article is not about the Yugoslav standard! You're objecting to a straw man, not to the actual article.

Also, the existence of this language is not at all disputed in English. The only dispute is what to call it. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call Kwami on that Primary thing. I was trying to find a word for that too. I think that the NPOV tag can be moved from the top of the article to the Present Situation section, which seems the most badly written. I've changed a couple things there before, but as I stated, someone with more knowledge needs to rearrange it, at the very least. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the POV tag is there because Croq thinks this article is about the defunct Yugoslav standard, and that it claims that standard is still in official use. That is, AFAIK it's base on a simple (or perhaps not so simple) misunderstanding. But let's give it another day before we move it. — kwami (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok,it´s much better now, and I agree with Kwami there are some misunderstood things. But let´s talk about the other things that should be formulated in a way not to be misunderstandable. :-) But how to make sure, that people who are reading this article don´t interprete that it is about a term that was in the past Yu-Standard? I think that an information/with internal link should be in the beginning just because if we citate Ranko Bugarski and his opinion we should also citate something from another opinion which oposes SC. And I would ask you just to check this Grcevic, Uni Mannheim. I think there are so many informations abou the reason why the term SC is so controversal. Frome some points of view it is a plurescentric language, but from other ponts of view we have a south slavic continuum where should be equality acording to the emancipation of the nations that we have now. That´s why I think that the sencence "...and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro..." is not a good formulation. Later in the article we have presented all the different ponts of view about that terminus and that´s ok. As a german native speaker I ask myself why is it possible that Luxembourgish is no longer considered being a German dialect today but a language (what is absolutely ok) but not the same with Croatian and Serbian. Perhaps in the day when the same will happen with Croatian and Serbian the controversity will be finished. --Croq (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Serbocroatian/Serbocroat holds no controversy in the english language as far as I know. And it makes up part of a greater continuum, but is a definite distinct part of the continuum, so it does exist. The different points of view should be covered in the present situation section.

Additionally, Luxembourgish is sometimes considered a dialect of german, just as swiss german is a dialect of German. To say luxembourgish is not German can raise eyebrows. Even Dutch is sometimes considered German, although I guess that is comparable with making Slovenian part of Serbocroat. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... to my knowledge Slovene is based on the Kajkavian dialect, which is also a part of the Serbo-Croatian language. In effect you have two dialects, one of which forms the basis for Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, and another which forms the basis for Slovene. The Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, which though not the standard dialect is certainly its part, is very very similar to Slovene. It is also predominant in regions towards the Slovene border. I am told that Croats living on the border with Slovenia have an almost indistinguishable local speech from their Slovene neighbors, though I cannot really say from personal experience I'm from the Mediterranean coast myself (thank god ;), and pure Kajkavian/Slovene is Greek to me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Chip, nobody says that it does not exist. That is not the controverse. As much as I understand the term SC has obviously two meanings in engl. language:

• 1.The never really unified Yugoslav standard, a political fiction
• 2.Diclect continuum /for some linguists a Southslavic Diaclectcontiuuum, for some a SC Dialectcontinuum. Right?

So one soulution is a Disamb or to change the first sentences. What do you suggest? --Croq (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's pretty much it. But I'd reverse the numbers: in English, AFAIK, it's really (2) that's primary; most English speakers know and care little about Yugoslav politics.

A couple months ago I proposed splitting off a 'Standard SC' article for the Yugoslav standard, to be home to the language politics, but no-one supported my suggestion. If we don't split the article, and even if we do, we can of course reword the first paragraph. What do you suggest? I don't want to delete the 'primary language' sentence, because for nearly every language, we cover where it is spoken in the first sentence, as well as such info as whether it's important, literary, official, etc. To not do that here for political sensitivities is IMO censorship. But we can probably reword it to avoid the misunderstanding that you object to.

As for "dialect continuum", Croatian is also a dialect continuum. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is fine to stand for itself. Serbocroat seems to be as much of a dialect continuum as English is, and there is a page for English. As long as the debate and disputes are covered in the article the lede seems (contentwise) perfect to me.

Motion to move the NPOV tag to the below sections, which are either POV or terribly written. Either way, could use some work. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. It seems the issue in the lede is careful wording to avoid having Croats reading English as if it were Croatian, not the actual content. — kwami (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn´t it sound more precisous or neutral to write something like ..."SC is a part of south slavic dialect continuum..." instead of ..."the primary language of" (what is from my pont of view not neutral)... Bosniacs and Montenegrins are nowdays same as Croats and Serbs free nations. National and liguistic emancipation happened quite late, but there it is. I also think that the engl. literature about that subject changed it´s terms since the end of ex-Yu. And once again: Speaking dialects is in these countries like in all the other countries matter of education, social and other reasons. --Croq (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To someone with a very one-sided view on something something NPOV may well appear POV. If "education, social and other reasons" would be what separates dialects from languages, then there would be lots of 'dialects' that are totally unintelligible to speakers of the prestige language, they could even be of totally different stocks. --JorisvS (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As a note, "linguistic emancipation" smacks of politics, as does your argument. The thing is, this article is based on linguistics, not politics. IF a country changes the name of its language, then fine, but it's still the same language. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As an example how to write a neutral ond correct article you can see in articles like Moselle Franconian dialects and Luxembourgish. Based on linguistics. The first sentences of the article were written by persons who are obviously mixchanging politics and linguistics. And is that the reason, why not even in the sentence "demographics" you each time remove the results where the people at the census declare what is their mother tongue? If you want only to show the opinion of some professors or engl. speaking literature from 1850-1991 in english speaking contries- this article who is in the global wikipedia will never be accepted as neutral. We have to show from the first sentence both points of view. --Croq (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The lede sentence to both seem to be similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"West German Central Dialects" would be more or less like "West South Slavic Dialectcontinnum".... You get it now? :-) --Croq (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OH! You mean in the Language family section! That's not the lede, so it's different. Comparing the two ledes

This article: Serbo-Croatian...is a pluricentric South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Luxembourgish: Luxembourgish...is a Moselle Franconian language spoken mainly in Luxembourg. About 390,000[1] people worldwide speak Luxembourgish.

Those seem the same.

The sentence you're referring to (I think): "Luxembourgish belongs to the West Central German group of High German languages and is the primary example of a Moselle Franconian language." That just states the language family it is in, so we'd say South Slavic here, which is done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to explain in another way: On the one way a diamb. like at the Dano-Norwegian (disambiguation) could be a solution but Kwami wrote that this solution was not supported. So we should descripe this two points of meaning in the first sentences. And the formulation..."primary language in..." should be removed because that is something that is not neutral. We have standard languages in this countries. The third paragraph ..." modern standard was established in the late 19th century..." should also be removed or formulated different because as we know SC was never full standardized, only particular... --Croq (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Gaj and others standardized Serbian/Croatian/Illyrian in the 19th century, did they not? Most of the projects were intended as a single unified language, though for all I know there may have also been some at the time who intended religious segregation. As for claiming that Croats only speak Standard Croatian, that's clearly not true. Also, what's not neutral? Is it not neutral to say that 'Slavic is spoken in Russia', because Russians don't speak Slavic, they speak Russian?

Please read abstand language. You still don't seem to understand this concept, and because of it we're arguing past each other. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It´s no question that Russians speak Slavic. It´s also no question that Slowenes, Croats, Bosniacs, Montenegrins and Serbs also speak Slavic languages. More exact they speak South-West Slavic Diaclectcontinuum. That´s would be a neutral sentence. --Croq (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But Slovenians also speak West Southern Slavic. They don't speak SC. Attempts at unifying Slov. w SC failed, whereas folks like Gaj succeeded in basing standard S and C on the same dialect. Same dialect, therefore same language. The name of that language in English is SC. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Can the tag be removed now? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no real reason presented for retaining it. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely nothing has changed--Croq (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing has changed. You still haven't shown us anything that is not neutral. Serbs and Croats both speak Indo-European/Slavic/South Slavic/Serbo-Croatian. And ...? — kwami (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian dialects

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Who is claiming that Serbo-Croatian language (or macro-language) contains dialects such as Kajkavian, Čakavian and Torlakian? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, it does. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? What dictionary, book, newspaper article etc. claims this? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of town for the week, but that's the standard understanding of SC. I'm sure you could find scores of refs. Anyway, my point with the revert is that we shouldn't be tagging the lede for refs, because the lede should be a summary of the body of the article, and the body should be fully supported by refs. If there's nothing to tag in the body, then perhaps we should have the tag in the lede until we get it worked out. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is self-contradictory. It confuses the Serbo-Croatian language, which is based only on Neoštokavian, to the geographic area of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Croatia.--Pepsi Lite (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the article that is self-contradictory, it is the term of "Serbo-Croatian" that has a number of meanings. The article just enumerates those usages. I don't see the problem here. I do, however, think that the whole sentence:
"Thus the term Serbo-Croatian is used both as an inclusive term for the four national standards and associated dialects such as Kajkavian, Čakavian, and Torlakian; for the old official standard of Yugoslavia; and as a common term for the language prior to the establishment of Yugoslavia."
could use some recasting. I think it attempts to be overly precise (especially the last part), when in real life the terminology is used rather loosely. No such user (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian is not associated with Kajkavian, Čakavian, and Torlakian. Serbo-Croatian is only associated only with štokavian. Croatian, Serbian, Bosniak and Montenegrin languages of today use the grammar and orthography that was standardized as the Serbo-Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian language does not use the grammar of Kajkavian, Čakavian, and Torlakian dialects.--Pepsi Lite (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At least in the official linguistics and textbooks during the time of SFR Yugoslavia (and I believe the same info can be found in English literature), Kajkavian and Čakavian were considered dialects of Serbo-Croatian, which was the "great unified language". They could not have been dialects of Croatian when Croatian, officially, did not exist.
I'm not saying that it should be so defined, just that it was defined that way. No such user (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your statement? Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects were being replaced by Štokavian based Serbo-Croatian language, since Kajkavian, Čakavian and Štokavian dialects have a different grammar. --Pepsi Lite (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, some people still treat it that way: [8]. Note that it is not a linguistic book, but it just demonstrates a common (mis)conception. There is a better overview here [9]. No such user (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the misunderstanding is due to the fact that Croatian, a part of Serbocroatian, considers the other dialects to be part of Croatian, which makes them part of Serbocroatian. This article isn't exclusively about the former standard language, just as the article on the English language isn't focused on a particular standard. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several supporting refs in the quotes I gave from the ELL2 above:

• Rule Borrowing. S Thomason (USA)

"One striking example is the development of a stress pattern, in a dialect of Croatian spoken near the Hungarian border, that is unique in all of Serbo-Croatian."

"A morphological example that also belongs in this category is found in the Serbo-Croatian [Chakavian] dialect of Hvar, as described by Hraste (1935: 17–25). [...] But under the influence of Standard Serbo-Croatian, younger Hvar speakers had replaced this pattern with the Standard one [...]"

• Areal Linguistics. L. Campbell

"The languages of the Balkans are Greek, Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Romanian"

Etc. — kwami (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Chakavian and Kajkavian aren't languages but dialects.--Pepsi Lite (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you've answered your own question: they must be SC, since they're not any of the other languages of the Balkans. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, because they are in the geographic area covered by SC, and not because of some similarity or form related to SC?--Pepsi Lite (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The first cite states categorically that Chakavian is SC. The second lists the languages of the Balkans. Since Ch. & K. are Balkan dialects, they are dialects of one of the languages of the Balkans. There are other similar refs, which use the term SC to mean S + C, including all dialects thereof. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread is just silly, of course the dialects are part of the same language. For heaven's sake I actually speak Chakavian (old Split variant). To me its like asking "confirmation" that American English is a part of English. Silly. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comprehend how you can make such a statement. Perhaps you are confusing the term "Serbo-Croatian language" to "Western-South-Slavic language family". The words "ča" and "kaj" were never used in any book that was written in the Serbo-Croatian language, nor it's grammar. It is as if the English language was called the "British language" even if no Welsh words or grammar was part of it. --Pepsi Lite (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn´t "SerboCroatian" comparible with a pigidin English from somewhere (English mixt with another language, not standardized...etc? ) Very confusting, isn´t it? --Croq (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Only in your dreams, I'm afraid. And oh, it's standardized, but not just once, but three times (for the time being), which is not even that different from English (likewise with its different standardizations; note the word itself, that's the American way, "standardisation" the British way, though British accepts the -ize as well). --JorisvS (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is no. That is probably similar to the myth that Hindustani is two different languages that sound similar. It's actually just a pluricentric language. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, precisely: pluricentric=having more than one center (read "standard" here).--JorisvS (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops sorry JorisvS, replying to Croq not you! *abashed look* Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my deare, if you compare Croatian Kajkavian dialect which is similar to Slovenian language and Serbian torlakian which is similar to Macedonian and Bulgarian language you see how unlogical is the term "SC". --Croq (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems more accurate than "Croatian", being much more inclusive. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And logical. A language (area) defined without any regard for linguistic criteria (isoglosses), right. --JorisvS (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral formulated first sentences and infobox

I have just tried to find a way where more than one opinion is presented in the first sentences difflink . Additionally the infobox should be re-created.--Croq (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Chip, why did you revert this? All the ponts of view are showed there.An we should remove the flags from the infobox, as they are one of the points of view... --Croq (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't, I actually held out on reverting it, the first reverter was someone else. I personally feel the new intro breaks WP:WEIGHT at the very least, but I will not revert it again for now.

I don't see how flags are a POV, they are just there to make the infobox better, providing a link with the country names. Also looks better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hope with this new impuls we can find a solution. In case of the flags I think that they are just ilustrating one of the points of view. I think trhat only things that are not disputed thould be in the infobox. --Croq (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I reverted, for several reasons. The lead starts off by misleading the readers that there is a complex nomenclature of "Serbo-Croatian", when in fact we mostly have stricter and looser usage of terminology (which we shouldn't nitpick as we did in the discussion above, about Kajkavian and chakavian). It starts with a bulleted list which is highly discouraged in the lead section. It proceeds by WP:WEASEL words "According to some linguists", which gives a WP:UNDUE weight on opinion that the "language has never existed".

I still think that even the current lead (before your edit) is overburdened with fine details, enumerating all shades of meaning of "Serbo-Croatian" in a misguided attempt to satisfy NPOV. We need something much more straightforward and concise, with fine details about the dispute left in the main text. I will try to lay my hands on it when I find some time and inspiration. Your attempt, however, is decisively in the wrong direction. No such user (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could do that Nosuchuser, it would be much appreciated. I personally feel like I've been bogged down in this article a bit too much to have a strictly NPOV at the moment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, until "No such user" will fnd time to do it beter than my version, let us have there the NPOV sign--Croq (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Croq, if I may say so, the grammar in your last edit is much better than in some of your previous edits! :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since nothing has happened for over a week, I separated out the naming issues from the lede, cutting out some of the more poorly supported assertions. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added to your new version some additional points of view in the beginning of the article, because the last version showed only one pont of view or one meaning of the this controversal term. And not everyone reads it completely. --Croq (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists

"Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." Sorry croq, that edit won't work. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Serbs and Croats have separate standards is obvious from both the lede and the info box. I don't see why it should be emphasized any more than it already is.

I made a slight change of wording to the lede. I'm not sure if it's an improvement or not. — kwami (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The fact that SC, as a pluricentric language, goes by different names isn't all that straightforward; compare English, which doesn't go by different names. --JorisvS (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It reads funny, could be written better, but I'm not in the right state of mind to copy-edit. Additionally, the lead should not contain information not found in the rest of the article. Suggest an expansion of the name section, which discusses names in other languages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The name section does cover it: that SC has been called S, C, or B, without implying that those are different langs, when spoken by Cs, Ss, or Bs.

How about now? — kwami (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're magic kwami Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It´s magic that you try and try to continue your POV pushing. You are behaving like in the former comunist dictatorship. Only the opinion of the party counts... --Croq (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the former dictatorship was particularly concerned with the truth. Here we are: only reality counts, not fantasy. You're denying that Croatian is SC? Why not claim it's Sumerian? — kwami (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote it, trying to explain more clearly the differences from the Yugoslav standard and the modern versions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think jumping right into when the standard was established is what the normal reader would expect of a language article. IMO that belongs in the 2nd paragraph or closer to the end of the 1st if the 1st is relatively long. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a standard layout in some wikiproject? Wikiproject linguistics if that exists? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. You might just want to look at other lang articles about this length, esp. if they're GA or FA. — kwami (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we need some examples here to show you experts, that this languages are not one language. If you like we can start with examples now. Every day at least one. Chip, do you know the word for artifical fertilizer in Croatian and Serbian? And "Serbocroatian"? --Croq (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably high numbers, around 25% of Croats and Serbs, name their maternal language as Yugoslavian. But, while Serbs usually call their language Serbo-Croatian (only a few call it Serbian); Croats call their maternal language for the most part – Croatian, and not Serbo-Croatian or Croatian or Serbian. (see p. 142). Such difference in views on their maternal language among Yugoslav citizens in Sweden led to the decision on making two dictionaries, one under the name Swedish-Croatian dictionary (in cooperation between Božidar Finka PhD, Petar Šimunović PhD and Antun Šojat PhD) and the other under the title Swedish-Serbocroatian dictionary. Both dictionaries were published by Skolöverstyrelsen Statens institut för Läromedelsinformation in Stockholm in the year 1985.

Prilično velik broj, oko 25% Srba i Hrvata svoj materinski jezik naziva jugoslavenskim. Međutim dok Srbi obično jezik nazivaju srpskohrvatskim (samo nekolicina ga nazivaju srpskim), Hrvati svoj materinski jezik uglavnom nazivaju hrvatskim, a ne srpskohrvatskim ili hrvatskim ili srpskim. (usp. str. 142). Takva razlika u pogledima na svoj materinski jezik među Jugoslavenima u Švedskoj dovela je do odluke o izradi dvaju rječnika, jednog pod naslovom Švedsko-hrvatski rječnik (u suradnji s dr. Božidarom Finkom, dr. Petrom Šimunovićem i dr. Antunom Šojatom) i drugog pod naslovom Švedsko-srpskohrvatski rječnik. Rječnike je izdao Skolöverstyrelsen Statens institut för Läromedelsinformation u Stocholmu 1985. godine.

The data is from a 1988 paper by Milica Mihaljević published in Rasprave Zavoda za jezik, book 14, Zavod za jezik Instituta za filologiju i folkloristiku, Zagreb, 1988, p. 127, ISSN 0351-434X

--Sokac121 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem to be more of an issue for Croats than for Serbs, though we've had a few of the latter. I think we have plenty of citations that Serbian and Croatian are dialectologically a single language. Croq has admitted as much; the problem is with zealots for whom no amount of evidence will mean anything. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason is simply that Serbs outnumber Croats by cca. 2:1, causing a difference in national awareness.

• Serbian thought leans toward the view that Serbs and Croats are the same one, crucially unnamed nation (some attempted names include "Illyrians" and "Yugoslavs"). Serbian nationalists (e.g. Vojislav Šešelj) take it further by claiming that the "one nation" is the Serbian nation ("Croats are actually Serbs, they just don't know it yet"). The latter is extremely offensive and universally unacceptable to Croats - but the general idea of the one nation was rejected by Croats only since the 1920s, when the very real danger of cultural assimilation in the Serbian-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia caused strong anti-unitarian sentiment.
• Croatian national awareness (since the 1920s!) is founded on viewing the Croatian national identity as distinctly separate from the Serbian one. Nationalists characteristically take it to the point of absurdity here as well, claiming that Croats are actually superior to Serbs, even claiming non-Slavic "Aryan" heritage and inventing fake unused words ("strijelica") to seperate the Croatian language from Serbian as much as possible.

The above should also explain why we are seeing far more Croatian than Serbian nationalist acrivity: Serbian radical nationalists generally push towards the cultural absorption of Croats (that, however, has of course been an imaginary threat and a thoroughly fantastic prospect virtually since 1945). The actual fact is we are obviously both two sightly differing cultural facets of the same nation - the real tragedy being that the cause of all conflict is the simple lack of a common name for this nation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR should stop pushing his POV of a one nation, which is not (and was not) universally accepted. This only shows the true extent of how far he is willing to go.

ISO 639-2/RA Change Notice

ISO 639-1 Code	ISO 639-2 Code	English name of Language	French name of Language	Date Added or Changed	Category of Change	Notes
[-sh]	(none)	Serbo-Croatian	serbo-croate	2000-02-18	Dep	This code was deprecated in 2000 because there were separate language codes for each individual language represented (Serbian, Croatian, and then Bosnian was added). It was published in a revision of ISO 639-1, but never was included in ISO 639-2. It is considered a macrolanguage (general name for a cluster of closely related individual languages) in ISO 639-3. Its deprecated status was reaffirmed by the ISO 639 JAC in 2005.

Source: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php

Serbo-Croatian was just a more common name for Serbian language, since Serbs accepted that name and what it really represented. The source from 1988. is clear about it.

In Sweden, some Australian states and in British Columbia, not to mention USA, Croats used their language freely and under its natural name: Croatian language.--Sokac121 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is only one problem with this: Linguistically, Serbian and Croatian are the same language, its English name being Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Common sense has precedence over your theories. Nobody can put the "genie back into the bottle", not since 1848.

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is just for naming the articles. Listing the two languages under the same "cap" (or name) is WP:SYN and WP:OR.

From what DIR said, it is clear that the complete issue of blanking Croatian grammar (making it a redirect), is motivated towards the unification of nations, by means of unification of languages.--Sokac121 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The grammar wasn't blanked, it was merged, because we had the same info in two articles. There was no objection despite several months' notice.

People are free to call their language whatever they like. However, we are neither Croats nor Serbs, and cannot in good conscience call the language either Croatian or Serbian.

If you have a better suggestion for what to call the language of which Serbian and Croatian are registers, let's hear it. But denying it exists won't make it go away. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, do you understand what the concept of the natural language is? Humans have this tendency to use a natural language. And Croats decided to elect their representatives in 1990, when the new Constitution of Croatia was passed. The most apparent truths were written, one of those was the naming of the official language of Croatia, that being the Croatian language.

Standardology of the Croatian language is by definition a matter of Sociolinguistics, and you cannot change the natural language of human beings. Linguistics as you perceive it is a matter of a narrow scope, and being produced by a minority of scientists for their own pleasure. That is not the case, nor can it be the case. Linguistics can only describe, and describe from relevant sources, and your sources (for instance Wayles Browne) and other denialists of Croatian language are not relevant – since continue to defy common sense and the International community.

Talk:Serbo-Croatian grammarAll that talk of a consensus being reached is a complete fabrication. You cannot re-start an unsuccessful merge attempt that was started by GregorB (on 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)) and supported by a ardent Yugoslav nationalist Ivan Štambuk (on 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)). And somehow miraculously continue that "proposal", counting in what they said as "current". Then you came and "declared" that you want to continue on the proposal made by GregorB and Ivan Štambuk. This is not following proper procedure, nor you can expect that their "votes" could be counted in. Your proposal is only yours. When you made your proposal (18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)), Saxum and Coldipa were agains the merge, and nobody even supported your POV at that time. Then, you acted in defiance of the rules and blanked Croatian grammar, making it a mere redirect. That is what happened.--Sokac121 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of wasting my time, since this has been said many many times, I'll go over it again:

Yes, sociolinguistically Croatian is a separate language. That's why we have a separate article at Croatian language: if it were not separate sociolinguistically, we'd simply merge it into this article.

However, Croatian belongs to a node called SC, and we have an article on that node too. That's also the language in the dialectological sense.

None of this has anything to do with "natural" language, except that Standard Croatian is a product of language planning and can be considered artificial in that sense, just as all standardized languages are in some sense artificial.

The merge proposal had unanimous consent among all editors who gave an intelligible response. (I wasn't even aware of an earlier attempt to merge, not that it's relevant.) One editor said s.t. along the lines of 'this is why people don't take WP for serious', but gave no cogent reason for objecting. Thus we had a clear consensus. If you don't like it, you can propose splitting the article, but otherwise complaining about it is a waste of everyone's time. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The account Sokac121 is sockpuppeted/abused by multiple users. A few months ago on wiktionary he/she was unable to communicate in basic English, making firth-grader errors in spellings and syntax. I suggest that everyone just ignore this troll. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples in the section "Division by jat reflex"

May I propose the addition of one more line, perhaps below the word "grějati". In the 1st person singular of the present it is "grějem" which is reflected as "grejem" and "grijem" where "ije" is not a reflex of yat, but only "i" is a reflex of yat. That is very interesting example, won't you say? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)