Talk:Central South Slavic diasystem

Please, don't make redirects when having articles with heated topics, discuss it. Kubura (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the theorists of this diasystem, all Croatian dialects, as well as standard Croatian language are part of this diasystem.
On the other hand, neither Croatian dialects neither Croatian standard language is not the same thing as "Serbocroatian".
Serbocroatian was official language in SR Serbia. In SR Croatia, it was not. In SR Croatia, the official language was "Croatian" and "Croatian or Serbian" (1971-1989). The latter was a kind of "light Croatian", for speakers of Serbian to understand. It contained more internationalisms, lot of unique Croatian words were kicked out of use as "too nationalistic"; if there was a word in Croatian that was unique Croatian and the one as same as in Serbian, the latter was in use, while the unique one was designed as "archaic" or even "nationalistic". In total, policy of violent making of Croatian and Serbian closer). Kubura (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about terms. Wikipedia generally doesn't have articles about terms, unless there are enough sources and enough to be said about the term itself (as opposed to the topic that the term denotes). In this case, there's really no need for that.

There is no doubt that both "Central South Slavic diasystem" and "Serbo-Croatian language" are two different names for the same thing. The usage of one or the other name by individual authors implies that they have different opinions about that thing, not that they're talking about two different things.

In wikipedia, the title of the article is whatever the most common English name for the topic is, which is frequently not the most correct name. You can argue at talk:Serbo-Croatian language that that article should be moved to this name, but we're not going to have two articles about it. Zocky | picture popups 13:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same thing. A redirect is in order, otherwise it's like a POV fork. - Francis Tyers · 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the talk page of Serbo-Croatian language..

Zocky, the notion of 'Serbo-Croatian language' in a sense "Chakavian+Kajkavian+Štokavian+Torlakian dialects' is nowadays obsolete and politically incorrect, and carefully avoided in all recent English literature not writen by professors of Serbo-Croatian or Serb nationalists, usually in favour of some ad-hoc coined terms such as "BCS complex" and similar. The #Dialects section of SC article and content that is duplicated from/to Štokavian article should be moved either here, or elsewhere where community decides. I can see on the talk page of the SC article that somebody already raised that issue, but it was not resolved, and Mrcina dude was overrun by the clique that runs the dead "Serbo-Croatian" wikiprojects. ^_^

Dialects are regional designations, so you have "Croatian dialects", "Serbian dialects" and "Bosnian and Herzegovian dialects" (not "Bosnian dialects" since Bosnian/Bosniak language exist only as a standard language, not as a set of dialects). Communists enforced the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" on the basis of borders and "brotherhood and unity" spirit, both of which are todays very different.

Speaking of Kajkavian and Chakavian as "Serbo-Croatian dialects" is anachronistic and politically incorrect, and the current wording in the SC article is directly in contradiction what the articles on Čakavian and Kajkavian say in their lead section. Modern dialectology books are very careful not to include Croatian-only dialects (both on regional, and centuries-old literary grounds) in some "Serbo-Croatian" scheme that would leave e.g. Slovenian dialects, or Serbian dialect of Torlakian in the scheme would would cut it of Bulgaro-Macedonian dialects, as that would be absurd.

IMHO the whole dialects section of #SC should be simply deleted because there is no more a state that this set of dialects would belong to, there is no genetic justification to bump Kajkavian/Čakavian/Štokavian/Torlakian on one pile and call it..something, and no need to just duplicate what can and has been said in much more details on the respective articles on dialects of Croatia, Serbia, B&H and Montenegro (and maybe Kosovo, soon to be extinct judging from the decline on the population of Serbs ^_^) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what I say?
According to the theorists of this diasystem, all Croatian dialects, belong here (that means, Čakavian and Kajkavian also).
Čakavian and Kajkavian are the dialects that Serbs don't have, nor Bosniacs nor Montenegrins, soleley Croats. So, simply, this cannot be "Serbocroatian".
You're giving wrong information.
Also, Bosnian and Montenegrin language belong to that diasystem.
So-called "Serbo-Croatian" is an insult for Bosniacs and Montenegrins. That way, you're imposing the name of Croats and Serbs to those two nations, and we are not allowed to do such things.
Further, "Serbocroatian" or "Serbian or Croatian" (I have to see the proper name), that was in official use in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina (during SFRY) isn't the same language as todays Bosnian language (as well as ICTY's so called "bcs" - it has nothing with Bosnian and Croatian language). It didn't had their specific forms.
However, Bosnian language is part of Central South Slavic diasystem, according to the theorists of this diasystem (including the Bosniak Dževad Jahić).
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice discussion, Zocky. I had to barf green to write something, while you simply redirect, "who gives a damn about others' contributions". Kubura (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk.
Central South Slavic diasystem encompasses all the dialects (no matter if they're standardized or not) of all nations involved here: Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Montenegrins.
So-called "Serbocroatian language" encompasses only two nations: Serbs and Croats. It was a standardized language of SR Serbia, SR Montenegro and in SR Bosnia-Herzegovina. No dialect belong to this category. Kubura (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CSSD is in that sense synonymous to the term Serbo-Croatian in a sense "collection of dialects (as opposed to the sense "standardised neoštokavian in 2 minor variants). That has been abundantly explained to you above and elsewhere, but it somehow simply cannot penetrate your nationalist logic. SC has nothing to do with "nations" - when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), neither Croats or Serbs existed as nations. Later the term was used retroactively as a term of compromise because commies didn't feel like bestowing nationlity upon "Muslim Slavs", and many (most) Montenegrins in nationalist/ehtnic sense identified themselves with Serbs. Essentially the term CSSD is a lame attempt by Brozović to replace one meaning of the term Serb-Croatian, that has largely failed, being endorsed only by radical nationalist Croatian pseudo-linguists. It's not a valid genetic clade (see Matasović: 2008), and it introduces absolutely nothing new except more confusion into terminologically heavily contaminated field. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So Kubura, if u want to discuss the terminological distinction bitween SC and CSSD, please open up discussion on the talk page of [[Serbo-Croatian language]], as this issue pertains to this article more than everything else (if necessary, we can {{main}} it to the master article). What you are trying to do is to pretend that these 2 have nothing in common, your next step supposedly being rewikifying every instance of [[Serbo-Croatian language]] to [[Central South Slavic diasystem]]. C'mon, we're smarter than that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, don't mess into things that you don't know.
"and many (most) Montenegrins in nationalist/ehtnic sense identified themselves with Serbs". Do you know the difference between "national sense" and "nationalist sense"? Second, "most Montenegrins". We cannot know that. That's your original work. Please, read WP:OR.
The term "Serbo-Croatian" was previously been used for "Central South Slavic diasystem". However, since the introduction of that term, we can still make difference between the official language and the diasystem.
" SC has nothing to do with "nations" - when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), neither Croats or Serbs existed as nations.".
Croats and Serbs did exist as nations in those centuries. But not so nationally formed and not so nationally awakened/nationally conscious as today.
"...but it somehow simply cannot penetrate your nationalist logic". Word "nationalist" is heavy accusing word in the West, Ivane. It has very negative conotations. Giving of such attributes to other user is etiquetting, WP:ETIQ, a forbidden way of behaviour on WP. Don't try to "win" a discussion by throwing the mud on the opponent.
"when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), " (??????).
Have you read any linguist book? Have you ever read Brozović's work from 1987 "Hrvatski jezik, njegovo mjesto unutar južnoslavenskih i drugih slavenskih jezika, njegove povijesne mijene kao jezika hrvatske književnosti" (in Zbornik "Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu"). Recently it was re-published as "Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika", Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. Then read some of constructive criticism/additions to that work by Croatian academist Stjepan Babić in "Hrvatski jučer i danas", Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X.
There you'll see how long and how has Croatian language been developing (with some comparison with other Slavic languages, including Serbian). You've skipped half a millenium just like that. There you'll see that Croatian and Serbian had separate lines of development. Kubura (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, don't mess into things that you don't know. - Err, dear Kubura, my knowledge of the historical phonology of Serbo-Croatian and its dialects is quite comprehensive, and prob. everyone who has interacted with me here knows that. As much as your "arguments" are amusing, they generally represent a minority PoV that has been discarded by modern science. Since I have absolutely no intention of wasting my time discussing with first-class nationalist troll such as yourself on some obscure talkpage no-one actually pays attention to, and you having ignored my requests to bring up this contentious issue on the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, I'll do it myself and hereby invite you to continue discussing it there before indulging into further restorations of this page, lest I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"lest I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence".
No, child. They'll have to deal with you. I'm citing the academists, and you , "the guy that knows a lot about linguist topics", you've never read that Brozović's work (as you say)??? It's like speaking about economy without knowing the works of J.M.Keynes, Adam Smith or Ricardo.
As I see, now, when you've run out of arguments, now you're pulling the argument of threat and defamation:
- "I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence"
- "...discussing with first-class nationalist troll such as yourself on some obscure talkpage no-one actually pays attention to..."
You are not allowed to behave like this. Don't try to win the discussion by defamating your opponent.
About your accusation of "disruptive forking". Wikipedias in French, Hungarian and Romanian also have different articles for Serbocroatian and for CSSD. So, when you've accused and insulted me, you've accused and insulted also all the authors that've contributed on those articles on those Wikipedias.
According to your attitude, all those users that worked (lost their private time on writing and looking for references, digging in the literature, and the latter is a lot of work) on those articles about CSSD (including me) are stupid, and you're the only one who's smart. Not to mention the academists that wrote about that. Who cares about them, you're the only smart guy. Who cares for those sources, it's important what you think. International linguist community is asking you for the opinion, and doesn't care what those academists write.
Calling someone a "first-class nationalist troll" s heavy accusation. On the West, the adjective "nationalist" has almost similar negative conotation as "fascist". If your opponent doesn't retreat after your response/attack, and on the contrary, if he/she replies, that's not a reason to call him as "troll". Have you ever read WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL?
I'm not disrupting the article Serbocroatian language. That was a political project, and it deserves its own article.
So the CSSD. That's not a project, that's one of diasystems in the Slavic world. And it deserves the article that exclusively deals with it.
So, why are you making the problem on the matter where no problem should appear at all? Kubura (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

CSSD

A message of Ivan Štambuk on my talkpage.
"Hi, please discuss it [[1]]. And do watch for your tone, as it's very disdainful at first sight, emanating negative energy. Also, try citing from those books relevant parts, and not your amateurish conclusions. For example, you saying There you'll see that Croatian and Serbian had separate lines of development - I'd really like to know in what scenario have Serbian and Croatian managed to have "separate lines of development", but managed to share 99% of grammar (phonology exactly the same, trivial differences in morphology & syntax). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"

Dalibor Brozović, Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. For this topic, read pages 75-80 (better read whole book, I cannot translate whole book here).
p. 78: "...a hrvatska razvojna vertikala toliko je različita od svih ostalih da čak i ne pristaje nijednoj od dviju slavenskih razvojnih skupina - u Hrvata je crkvenoslavenski kompleks... prestao biti općehrvatskim problemom pri koncu 15. st., dakle gotovo isto toliko ranije nego u istočnoj slavenskoj skupini koliko kasnije negoli u zapadnoj ..."
p. 79-80: "Tako se npr. često doživljava kao sama po sebi razumljiva činjenica da je standardna novoštokavština standardnim jezikom i Srba i Crnogoraca i BiH Muslimana i Hrvata zato što ti narodi govore dijalektima istoga dijasistema. No to uopće nije istina - uzrok je u tom što su ti narodi uzeli za dijalekatsku osnovicu standarda više-manje isti, tj. novoštokavski dijalekatski tip u okviru toga dijasistema, ali sam je taj izbor bio vršen u razna doba, pod različitim okolnostima i s različitim motivacijama. Jer izbor je mogao proći i drugačije, da koji od tih naroda uzme za dijalekatsku osnovicu jezičnoga standarda koji nenovoštokavski štokavski dijalekt, ili uopće neštokavski (u podnošku: i u Hrvata i u Srba i u Crnogoraca sredine na nenovoštokavskom području bile su u prosjeku urbanije ili bar razvijenije. Što se tiče Hrvata... mogli su u 18. st. prihvatiti u cjelini kajkavski pismeni jezik...), ili čak da materijalnom osnovicom i ne postane kakav hrvatskosrpski dijalekt, nego koji neorganski dijalekatsko-crkvenoslavenski amalgam. Samo za BiH Muslimane nije ni hipotetski bilo dr. mogućnosti."
So, there's separate line of development. Brozović was very profound in the analysis, so if you want more, read the book (and the article from Stjepan Babić's Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X, p. 246-252). I hope I've helped you. Kubura (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kubura you're simply trolling and the paragraph of Brozović's book you're citing has absolutely nothing to do with this article. As I told, if you want to comment, do it on the appropriate Talk:Serbo-Croatian language section I opened. If you continue to keep restoring the article content, I will ask for administrative intervention, by someone who actually is familiar with basic linguistics. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)