User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 4

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Listen, you! Stop disturbing me by sending me private messages in some language that is not English, they are unwelcome.

Annabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)AnnabelleighAnnabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accused of POV

You've been indirectly accused here by User:Sir Floyd (yes, again...). I would appreciate your input here. Apparently, Tito is to be presented as the cause of the Yugoslav wars in "User:Sir Floyd"'s brand new "Legacy" section.

I'm still convinced he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of those Italian irredentists that got banned. He's proof-reading everything but his sentence structure is Italian, plain and simple. Apparently this is caused by dyslexia, even though I've never heard of such "Italianny" symptoms and I do know a bit about neurocognitive disorders. If he is a sock with no dyslexia this is a low, low move. Any ideas? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know what to add anymore to that topic. The way Sir Floyd wants to add to the article now is not anymore by directly associating Tito with Bleiburg and Foibe, but merely mentioning it as something related to the period of his command. At any case, I think that at least the discussion of the resurfacing of those two topics after the advent of 90s nationalism should be mentioned, from both nationalist and non-nationalist side. Article on GWB has Guantanamo Bay mentioned in it, so..

At any case, 20th century history is not really my topic of interest, and I have no doubts that you'll manage to push a reasonable, historically accurate solution :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ivo Andric

I find it strange that you've reverted the same sentence you had put there two days before (diff, diff). I don't have a problem with it, I just don't get it... Pozdrav.--Vitriden (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ma slazem se, nego, iskreno, veoma ne volim kad anonimni korisnici bez objasnjenja uklanjaju deo teksta, pa sam vratio, a onda me je tvoje revertovanje potpuno zbunilo. A objasniti sta je Andric bio po nacionalnosti bilo bi prilicno tesko i samom Andricu, ali zato likovi sa svih strana tacno znaju ko je i sta je bio. Isti slucaj i sa Teslom, Mesom Selimovicem, Rudjerom Boskovicem... A da pri tom o njihovom delu pojma nemaju. No dobro, ovde je uvek bilo bitnije sta si nego ko si... Pozdrav, keep on the good work.--Vitriden (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatian spelling wars

Ivan, you may find this article to be useful for handing out to non-Croatian editors on Wikipedia or Wiktionary who are genuinely unaware of the degree of politicization in modern Croatian linguistics.

http://www.ex-yupress.com/novi/novilist31.html

This article is quite interesting and accessible for the average reader. The only thing that I guarded against was taking it too seriously when reading it because of its source (www.ex-yupress.com - presumably a pro-Serbian or "Yugo-nostalgic" source). However the facts as presented in this article by ex-yupress.com corroborate with the analysis made by Robert D. Greenberg in his book on modern Serbo-Croatian sociolinguistics.

Speaking of Greenberg, Brozovic last year derided Greenberg's work for making "many obviously wrong claims". It's a pity that an otherwise competent linguist such as Brozovic sinks to the same level as a puppet for the HDZ.

The link to an abstract of Brozovic's criticism is here: http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/IJSL.2008.023

I hope that you'll find them to be useful although ill-informed ignorami such as Robert Ullmann (to say nothing of Croatian wikipedians such as Mir Harven, Anto, Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, Imbris etc.) would probably make an excuse to dismiss the first article as Greater Serbian propaganda. :-P

Pozdrav Vput (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on Albanian language page

People get changing the Albanian word table on the Albanian language page. Verdhë is yellow in Albanian and gjelbër yet people keep changing to thinking them around as they think this is a cognate table, but it is not. Although I have suggested the table be changed anyway. What do you think, we need a new table? Azalea pomp (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for Proto-Slavic borrowings

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Ivan Štambuk for creating an academically responsible and well researched article, Proto-Slavic borrowings. Especially in the section on the debate over Iranianisms, this article publicizes major recent works from both sides of the debate. These include a fresh assessment of the issue from just last year by Matasović, who issues a call for rigor in future research. Since Matasović 2008 is written in Croatian, quoting from it here is an especially valuable service to scholars.

Re

Ma nema sourcea, nema sourcea. Da ima neki source sta ga optužuje napisali bi mi, ali nema. Rummel je izgovor, krivo citiran. On jednostavno koristi "Tito Regime" umjesto "Yugoslavia" i genijalci su se uhvatili tega ka pijan plota. Onda oni nobelovac meni pocne citirat Spidermana "with great power comes great responsibility". :P Rummel ne optužuje Tita direktno, nego Yugoslavenski režim tog razdoblja. Nije ni on lud da priča gluposti.

ja sam to napisa ali me ne shvaćaju ozbiljno (iako imam više edita na ovoj Wikipediji nego svi oni skupa). Maka sam sekciju jer je to misrepresentation of sources. Oni če počet editratovat, pa se i ti ukjuči da ne bi jednostavno brojčano izrevertali i dobili šta hoće. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sretan Božić!

xD As an atheist (unfortunately violently baptized as a child :), I don't really practice pagan customs of celebrating winter solstice, Nature and the associatedly fabricated "gods", but I do appreciate the gesture itself and the act of spreading spirit of cosmic love and brotherhood ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you should appreciate THC just as much... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Joj, saću zamotat jednu frulu :D --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jedna božićna, jeli? xD Kao medicinar moram te ukoriti - kaže se truba, ne "frula" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kao amaterski lingvist moram ti replicirati da ovdje kod nas puše većma "frule" ^_^

Ja sam odvajkada govorio: 9delta-tetrahidrokanabinol i 1,3,7-trimetilksantin su programerovi najbolji prijatelji, naročito prilikom kodiranja za vrijeme dugih, snježnih zimskih noći, kad je sav civiliziran svijet u REM fazi a ti se rveš sa zdravim razumom trijebeći heisenbugove :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, discussion on what I gather is caffeine and marijuana aside... :) I'm an atheist too, but I enjoy Christmas. I think it's more a part of the Western cultural tradition than any religious custom these days. Still, no reason why you can't have a good time on the 24th and 25th (and the 7th if you wish), no? Go picket a church. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we smart folks use trivial chemical terminology, to show just how great we are. :)

As for xmas, I'm always ready to disregard atheism when free candy(!) is involved. btw, you do know that's an orthodox Christmas greeting above in the title? Serbs are orthodox, we Croats are catholic. There's no call for such insults... ;D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Free candy naturally trumps all theological arguments, that's an unfortunate and irrefutable character flaw of us atheists. :) And whoops, sorry, I simply looked up the Serbo-Croatian Xmas greeting. Do not question Christmas! Bow down before the power of Santa! —what a crazy random happenstance 04:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, (free) candy is real... or at least I'm reasonably sure there exists irrefutable empirical evidence for its existence. Oh dear, seems I shall have to do some thorough research on the subject this season. :P

(Fixed title to western variant of Serbo-Croatian. Traditional Serbian orthodox greeting is "God's peace! Christ is born!", we just say "merry Xmas!" :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 :D Are you sure that candy is not just a manifestation of your beliefs? A gift from the Candy Gods? Surrender your free will to find out! Thanks for fixing the title. BTW, before it broke, the link in my last post led to a humorously misanthropic and dystopian video from the Invader Zim Xmas special but the gracious people YouTube have kindly decided to protect me from being sued by Viacom and have removed it without telling me seconds after I posted it tagged as private. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The notice coldly informed me that "this video is not available in my country due to copyright restrictions". YouTube needs to get with the holiday spirit, don't they know the holiday spirit will give them candy?

The more I think about this Christmas crap the more I like it (divine inspiration?). Maybe if we spend enough money on Christmas we'll fuel the fake economy, save people's jobs and increase corporate profits - and as a bonus we just might not go to hell? Win-win, it seems... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't like the Judeo-Christian laissez-faire Capitalist tradition? What are you, a god-damn commie?! GO BACK TO RUSSIA! —what a crazy random happenstance 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell no, been there done that (the commie part, not the Russia part - can you imagine if I actually went there? I'm cold where I am right now, god...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic phonology

Hello Ivan,

I wonder if you are ready to make sure that the revised (more archaic or more Baltic looking) reconstruction of proto-Slavic phonology as championed by František Václav Mareš and recently also Holzer finds its way into the article Proto-Slavic language, also to enlighten readers who may wonder about the reconstructions in Proto-Slavic borrowings.

That said, I've just noticed that in Georg Holzer, it is claimed or at least implicated that Holzer devised his theory entirely by himself and that the theory is brand-new; however, there are obviously precedents, so perhaps this is a bit misleading and should be rephrased somehow. As I do not have Holzer's books handy, however, I am not quite sure which precedents Holzer acknowledges himself. Moreover, the article claims that his theory has been accepted in the field in the meanwhile; if so, this is all the more reason to incorporate the new reconstruction into the article about the protolanguage. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Florian!

Yes that article on Proto-Slavic needs a major rewrite. Holzer's scholarly work primarily deals with onomastics and dating of various Common Slavic sound changes. He is mentioned in the article only within the context of the statement that Proto-Slavic had no dialectal diversification at the year 600 (judging from the available evidence of onomastics data and various glosses, as Slavic speech was not written at that time). The reconstruction of Proto-Slavic phonological system is a different matter, and much complex and broader in scope. Primarily so because lots of works on that matter is a kind of painfully obsolete, and because different authors employ different notation for the same thing. I initially wanted to create several auxiliary articles (on borrowings, Slavic palatalizations, sound changes such as pleophony etc.) before attacking the main one, but meanwhile I got fed up with the topic and my mind diverted to different things. Currently my focus is outside Wikipedia but when I come back I'll certain make the enhancement of PSl. as one of my TODO stuff. It's a major undertaking because it would require compiling data and notation from several sources in order to maintain proper NPOV approach, because they are many unresolved problems in Common Slavic language that don't have any consensus. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity, but I understand your reasoning. Still, shouldn't the reader somehow be made aware of the different reconstructions and notations, the traditional OCS-based one (which, according to Holzer, doesn't even reflect the Saloniki dialect of the 9th century, after all) and the Baltic-looking one? It should be feasible for you to incorporate at least a note into Proto-Slavic language that alternatives to the traditional reconstruction/notation have been proposed, defended and to some extent accepted in the scientific community, and are sometimes used - for example, in your article. (And that the traditional notation is often retained in addition, but labelled Common Slavic.)

As for *ōseringu, perhaps the reason that the /i/ of Gothic *ausihriggs is reflected as /e/ here is the following /h/, which is known to lower (in traditional terminology: break) preceding /i/, possibly even subphonemically and automatically, so that the spelling *ausihriggs instead of *ausaihriggs is just a purely orthographic restitution according to the morphophonemic principle (but then, perhaps the "connecting vowel" was unstable by that time anyway, so it was prone to fluctuation). By the way, the Gothic word is not directly attested, anyway; Lehmann gives it as *ausi-hriggja-. But as the progressive (traditionally third) palatalisation accounts for the shape of the Slavic word, I see no reason to reconstruct a ja-stem here. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point I just noticed glancing over your excellent article: Isn't PSl. *melka generally held to be a loan from Germanic, as well? Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, PSL. *melka > Common Slavic *melko is borrowed from Gothic; native Satemized reflex of *h₂melǵ- has been preserved in the verb "to milk" (Common Slavic *melzti).

At the moment, the article on Proto-Slavic language unfortunately doesn't make notice of either reconstructions, but simply treats them collectively in quite a messy approach, paying no attention to diachrony and syncrhony. These 2 reconstructions reflect 2 stages of PSl. language: Early Proto-Slavic, with quantitative vowel oppositions, diphthongs.. and Late Proto-Slavic (aka Common Slavic), its last reconstructable phase, with qualitative oppositions, monophthongized diphthongs, nasal vowels, palatal(ized) consonants and other outputs of "law of open syllables" and "law of syllabic synharmony". Mapping between them is formulaic and trivial (you can devise almost a dozen sound laws just by looking at the article on Proto-Slavic borrowings). However, I do agree that in in current stage the article on PSl. should be enhanced with both newer notation, table of Early Proto-Slavic phonemic inventory (picking up were the article on Proto-Balto-Slavic left), and chronological treatment of sound changes as they occurred. That is exactly what I had in mind. However, it is necessary that all the auxiliary articles be created first, as I don't like unfinished work and prefer "bottoms-up" approach. I don't have any of literature at hand at the moment, so I can help only after January 5th or something like that.

Note that this is not some kind ogf "alternative reconstruction" or an "alternative notation", but a reconstruction of a different stage of language. The "traditional" reconstruction as you call it still very much used. Reconstructions of Common Slavic words is trivial, and can for the most part be done on the basis of OCS alone (and, as you notice, OCS was not identical to Common Slavic, but was very close to it, temporally by some 2 centuries off). Bot of them are equally valid and bot of them serve equal purpose. Someone interested in the relationships among modern and historical Slavic languages would of cause focus on Common Slavic reconstructions as a reference. Someone interested in pre-Common-Slavic times would utilize an earlier reference point; in case of prehistorical borrowings in Slavic, Early Proto-Slavic, where one can still observe the phonetic proximity to etymons and further degradation into attested forms, as well as important sound changes occurring in the process, several of which article on PSl. borrowings already makes notice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

translation?

Can you provide a quick/rough translation of these editsummaries? If they are incredibly over the top, feel free to send an email to me with them. Also, when reverting, please warn the IP. tedder (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail sent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elly Tran Ha

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Elly Tran Ha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Warrah (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted the "hangon" tag you applied to the above-captioned article and the assertion you made on its talk page. You are correct to note that the article suggests that Ms. Ha is a "celebrity", but the category for speedy deletion contains the provision that the article must "credibly" suggest that the individual in question is a celebrity. It is not sufficient to merely state that someone is a celebrity; there needs to be something in the way of reliable sources, or an indication that an arm's-length third-party expert other than the author believes the subject to be a celebrity, and for what reason. I do not find this unsubstantiated claim to be "credible" and thus have decided to agree with the individual who tagged the article for speedy deletion. If you feel you can substantiate this claim with reference to reliable sources, and you wish the deleted content to be returned to a "sandbox" page where you can add those sources with less urgency, feel free to leave me a note by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. She's the hottest chick on the Internet so sooner or later someone will bother to find some credible sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Badnjak

Friendly reminder, don't let these people bring you down by saying you are "overreacting" or "have something against Serbs". It is their form of intimidation, and it works on some. I only happened to look into badnjak while--shock--celebrating badnjak with my Croatian family. I'm still ill though, but it is definitely in the article's best interest for it to still be edited and portrayed accurately, i.e. not excluding anyone from "the club" that seems to have popped up.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's related serious literacy published by houses like Glas Koncila or Kršćanska sadašnjost, etc. so probably available in the libraries within church institutions. Those scans are good for starting, but nothing more, you're right. Maybe I have a friend who can help, we'll see. Zenanarh (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

potalijančuje imena - Ragusan aristocracy

I think you need to face the truth...Do you remember Marino de BONA and how you said his name was Marin Bunic and it was controversial for me to write that his name was not Marin Bunic. I proved to you that in his obituary in Slobodna Dalmacija his name was Marino de BONA.

I think you need to face up to reality about Dubrovnik's past! Have you ever even been there? You have not explained why there is no document with a Bunic signature and why tombstones of the nobility in Dubrovnik all have the non-Slavic names on them. Stop using other birds' feathers to make yourself look good. Debona.michel (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LoL, of course I've been there! (I happen to grew up in a place not far from it). As far as the writers who wrote in Slavic are concerned - bulk of them used consistently Slavic versions of their surnames, the surnames by which they are generally known by in the English-speaking world, and it's imperative that does surnames have priority. Hence Marin Držić not Marino Darsa, Ivan Gundulić not Giovanni Gondola... As far as the general nobility is concerned who didn't leave us literary works of value...well, I don't really care, as I'm not much familiar with the issue of their (sur)names. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply curious

Are you by any chance related to the Kereta family in California? V. Kereta married a Stambuk. Your father lives in Japan? (I was there over Xmas).Debona.michel (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of (and I don't know much about my own genealogy, and frankly couldn't care less). All Stambuk's are related in a way: there was just one family ~ 300 years ago, but we've managed to spread all around the globe, propagating like rabbits (my grandfather had 5 sons, his father 7...) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A little older revert you did

Something came to my attention right now.

Ivan Gundulic

Why remove? you asked

Because it's broken; redirects me here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Category:FYT-GAI

Care to elaborate? Er-vet-en (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin

Hi,

Do you have any refs that Macedonian Montenegrin is Eastern Herzegovinian (though I can probably do that) and that the two new letters are non-phonemic? The article currently claims they're for phonemes not found in EH. Might they be due to local dialects, as Croatian also has lexical influence from other dialects? kwami (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Montenegrin? Yeah, I could dig some refs, give me a couple of days. No they're non-phonemic, and the minimal pairs proposed by Montenegrin linguists are almost absurd. These two sounds are not spoken by the majority of the Montenegro population, and are not written anywhere in the media, papers, books...completely made up out of thin air. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry.

"not by the majority" implies they are by a (substantial) minority, which brings back the question of whether they're dialectical in Montenegro even if not found in Eastern Hercegovinian.

I would also like to rephrase the ledes of the SC articles so that they don't imply these are languages in the normal English sense of the term, as in calling s.o. quadrilingual for speaking all four, but make clear that they are national standard languages. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. kwami (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

S.o. just found your orphaned Serbo-Croatian grammar article. I've proposed merging S & C grammar there at WP Linguistics, and this will make it a lot easier! It's already the Bosnian and Montenegrin grammar article. I've started making minor changes such as commenting on the two extra Montenegrin letters, linking to the kin terms article, etc., and eventually moving over anything that the other articles have that yours as yet does not. Please let me know if I do anything silly! kwami (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one. It takes ridiculous amount of time to write those kind of articles - table formatting, diacritics, different scripts... The missing data from the S & C grammar articles should probably be merged. Your edits look fine. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

lols

Get a load of this :). A work of art by User:Sir Floyd --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, can you please join the discussion about the Oj, svijetla majska zoro on it's talk page? Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was your message

Hi, Ivan.
It wasn't me, it was you who wrote this [1]. It was your message.
So, please, don't say that I'm the one that writes "nacionalist nonsenses" (as you did here [2]).
Please, don't attack me for the things you wrote [3]. Kubura (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't revert, talk.

Ivan, why have you done this [4]?
Article was sourced.
Article about Central South Slavic diasystem is an article about the Brozović's theory about a diasystem.
Some scientists agree with him, some scientists disagree. All that is mentioned in the article, with short description.
Article has scientific references. Redirecting that article is equal to deletion.
Please, don't mix that with "Serbo-Croatian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the political project in the language area. It had long history.
Both articles can coexist.
Why do you make problem about that?
Brozović's theory can be wrong, but there're bunch of articles about theories (from various sciences) that proved wrong (or the ones that later proved to be right).
E.g., economics has a lot of theories, that were later abandoned (because they proved to be partially/conditionally/completely wrong). But students do learn those theories in the Universities all over the world.
Personally, I agree with Babić. So, I'm not pushing "my favourite version". But, according to the logic from above (example of economics), I wrote this article. We're not here to judge the theories: we give what's written in scientific works.
In any case, Brozović argumented why's the term CSSD better than the term "Serbo-Croatian". Therefore I've made replacements.
It was nice when you here wrote [5] "...there was possibly ancestor language for all Slovenian and Croatian dialects, and also similarly possibly Proto-East-South-Slavic (Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects) - but certianly no "Proto-South-Slavic" and within it some "Serbo-Croatian" node, who would be more unhomogeneous than any other real European language diasystem! The ancestral language of all idioms spoken nowadays by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins never existed.".
OK, excellent. I'd like your help. From your message from above, I see that you're informed a lot about that. Please, help me explain that to user Kwamikagami.
Sincere greetings, Kubura (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That article that you wrote is 1) content fork 2) written in an extremely PoVish manner. And as I've stated several times on that very talkpage - if Brozović's theory of CSSD should be discussed anywhere, it's on the Serbo-Croatian article page first, and only to be cut out in a separate article if it grows too big. I've already made some preparations for it at the South Slavic languages articles, but I takes a lot of time to find references and all. And what I wrote that you quote above in no way invalidates anything I said: there is really no genetic node of Serbo-Croatian, but there isn't either one for Croatian as far as that's concerned (and, there isn't even Proto-Čakavian or Proto-Kajkavian, believe it or not). Language groupings on the basics of national nomenclature in South Slavic area are arbitrary and based on political criteria. In dialectology there is only the Štokavian dialect and 4 national standards based on it. There is another thing of Čakavian, Kajakavian, Štokavian and Torlakian dialects mixing with one another throughout the history that also needs to be mentioned, for which the CSSD term is very useful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage:Croatian language - please, don't attack me

Hi, Ivan.
Please don't attack me [6]. Words like "you insolentw nationalist troll" do not belong here, as well as your implicated personal attack ("your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that...").
Please, read WP:PERSONAL, WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL.
"Bigoted fundamentalist just repeat their old dogmas for over and over again." Think about what you've written and say whome you can apply this sentence to: 1) to Croatian and modern foreign Slavists, or 2) to the ideologized Slavists that persistently push obsolete and ideologized serbocroatist theories from 150 years ago?
[7]"Your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that that myth has nothing to do with reality".
Interesting, all Croats that speak all those 3 dialects designate themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian (from centuries ago), and that's imaginary? Interesting. Please, see Population by mother tongue, by towns/municipalities, Croatian census 2001. Total 4.437.460, Croatian 4.265.081, Croatian-Serbian 2.054, Serbian 44.629, Serbian-Croatian 4.961. (there're [8] 3.977.171 Croats and 201.631 Serbs).
Am I imagining things and pushing fairy-tales?
I hope this'll help you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trolling Kubura, and I have no problems in telling you so. I have zero tolerance for nationalist, religious and political fundamentalists who twist facts and use cheap ad-hominems as an "argument". You digged out some obscure quote of mine that is not relevant to the discussion, and you expect me to do what exactly - give you a candy? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You've required help

You've asked for help [9] "...For example, to state that e.g. "standard Croatian is based on three equally-treated dialects", without providing actual evidence to support such claims.".
You've asked me once similar question. I've answered you 05:12, 20 May 2009 on the talkpage of the article Central South Slavic diasystem [10].
Maybe you haven't read it, but here's the literature from that message:

• 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
  

The book generally deals with the development of Croatian language, with comparative analysis with other Slavic languages (including South Slavic ones).

• Stjepan Babić's Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X, p. 246-252
  

These books are generally good, I've put some accent on certain pages. I hope that I've helped you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be understand what I was asking. I was asking for actual evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated statements that claim so, which is then nothing but wishful thinking on their author's part) that Croatian standard is three-dialectal. The quote that you provided actually states completely the opposite, which I was saying all along (narodi uzeli za dijalekatsku osnovicu standarda više-manje isti, tj. novoštokavski dijalekatski tip..). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulcsú László

The article Bulcsú László has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable individual, does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO criteria

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European root

For some reason, I can't find a good reference for the fact that PIE roots are verbal roots. Have you got one you could add to Proto-Indo-European root#Lexical meaning? BTW, I've nominated the article for GA, so any additions, copyediting or comments would be very welcome. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio or Faust Vrančić

You were involved on similar language issues so I thought this may interest you. regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and canvassing

[11] This is called wikihounding and canvassing. Read WP:HOUND and WP:CANVASS. Don't harass me WP:HARASSMENT. Kubura (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a dangerous troll that needs to be monitored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors names, such as "troll". You can be blocked for making personal attacks by doing that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually willing to help out in topics involving Kubura's year-long record of disruptive behavior (for example, putting junk in articles and later accusing everyone rectifying it as "stalking" or "harassing" him), or you're flexing your muscles in an isolated act of executing blind Justice? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ljudevit Gaj

You said s.t. about Ljudevit Gaj not being actually Croat? There's not even discussion of that point at Ljudevit Gaj. Could it be a diff tween the ethnicity he was born to and what he identified himself as? — kwami (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He was not born as ethnic Croat, just as the most major figures of what is today called "Croatian National Revival". I don't know how he self-professed later in life. Today Croatian history book call him a Croat, and I suspect that the majority of Western scholarship does the same. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting if you have sources to back that up. Western, preferably, if they exist, or it would be too easy to counter with accusations of Serbian nationalism. — kwami (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My way or highway

Hello. I am sad to say that with this [12][13] kind of behavior you are going to alienate even the people who basically share your viewpoint... like myself. I am not going to engage you any further, but I think that you are treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much. And that usually does not help your cause. Could you please drop the ball a little? No such user (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is a battleground. Between good-faith knowledgeable folks like me, and PoV partisans like Kursis who see "conspiracies" everywhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no-one to talk, since I have no patience for idiots and it quickly shows. But if you can avoid calling them idiots, or other personal attacks, and maintain a professional attitude, that makes it much easier when an admin is called in to distinguish the disruptive editors from the productive editors. It's obvious they're paranoid when no-one is attacking them; it's much more difficult to see when you are attacking them. I've seen a couple very good (and very knowledgeable) editors get blocked because they fell to the level of the idiots they were arguing with. (Though you're certainly nowhere near that point.) — kwami (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I pay attention to be just sufficiently abrasive to fend the trolls off, and to keep the discussion potentially productive. So far it works pretty well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave the Cyrillic in the OCS page

If the Croatians prefer Glagolitic or Latin scripts for their language, it's ok with me. but the Cyrillic is an inseparable part of OCS and most slavic languages. So let it be, where it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.60.145 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OCS corpus was written in both Glagolitic and Old Cyrillic script (see: OCS Canon). Proper Old Cyrillic needs Unicode 5.1 compatible fonts which 99.9% of Wikipedia users don't have. Just as they don't have Glagolitic fonts either. English-language OCS textbooks usually use scholarly transliteration and that's what we should too. Language has absolutely nothing to do with a script it was/is written in. You can state that a particular script is a part of a certain literary tradition - yes, but in that article it's fairly irrelevant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The used extra cyrillic characters are visible in most up-to-date browsers. And if someone cannot read them, the latin transcription is unaffected. I'm just sorry, i have no time to transcribe the whole page as of now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.60.145 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you see these characters: ꙗ, ꙋ, ꙁ, ꙃ, ꙑ ? You can't, and so can't 99.9% of Wikipedians. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you see them on the OCS page? NO! Because, they are not used for general spelling. Only in canonic text. The letters themselves without diacritics are ALL VISIBLE! So, stop fabricating arguments against the use of Cyrillic. I AM going the bring the issue to the attention of wikipedia. You are DISCRIMINATING against a valid script and information. The Cyrillic spelling affects in no way the already present information and content. So accept it. The Cyrillic is hier to stay in OCS, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Ukrainian and Russian. Deal with it! If you should add glagolitic, i won't delete it even if it's not correctly displayed in my browser. That's my, there are other transcriptions. Wikipedia is NOT the place to express personal attitude towards a script , language or folk!!!! --92.230.59.164 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What "general spelling" ? These are actual Early Cyrillic letters. They have no replacements. They are invisible to 99.9% of Wikipedians that don't have Unicode 5.1 compatible Cyrillic fonts (of which there are only 3-4, on specialized webpages). What you're doing is is making the page less accessible. This has nothing to do with my "personal attitude toward a script"; the fact that you impute it only shows how weak your arguments are. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The only letter that is not rendered properly by most fonts is the uk. Anyway, the letters i need for the transcription are available as of Unicode 1.0. in case someone sees a question mark, he or she would at least have the chance to update their fonts and see the appropriate Cyrillic spelling. And how an i making the page less accessible exactly? The Croatians don't like to see Cyrillic and are not going to read a page containing it? That's news... --92.230.59.164 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, none of the letters I listed above is rendered properly, unless you have specialized Unicode 5.1 Cyrillic fonts instaled such as BukyVede. This has nothing do with "Crotians" - it's bout established practice in English-languge textbooks and dictionaries of OCS. Using scholarly transcriptions fixes 3 problems 1) you don't need to have specialized fonts installed 2) we don't have to deal with the clutter of biscriptality 3) it's significantly lowers the burden on readers to study these obscure scripts, and focuses the article on the grammar itself. If you want to emphasize the "true script" - you can add cross-wikilinks to proper Cyrillic and Glaglitic spellings at Wiktionary. See wikt:Category:Old Church Slavonic language --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining OCS grammar without cyrillic is like explaining Chinese without chinese characters, only because most users won't be able to render or read them! That's the last stroke of argument i excange with you. Time for the next level.--92.230.59.164 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is the English Wikipedia. As such, its intended audience is for English speakers. There are other Wikipedias in other languages available. I don't see how it adds value to the English Wikipedia to insist on including characters that almost nobody can view, especially in light of the fact that scholarly publications on OCS, as Ivan pointed out, don't use those characters either.

Regarding the last point, it is quite possible to explain Chinese without Chinese characters (many Chinese are illiterate and don't need the characters to understand Chinese), but that's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be explaining ancient Chinese without ancient Chinese characters, especially when those characters are not available in any computer character encoding, anywhere. Because of the unavailability of obscure old Cyrillic characters, I see no compelling reason to use them. Doing so adds no value to the project.

A better solution might be to create a graphic image of an example using those characters. It wouldn't be part of the article text, but everybody would be able to view the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Continuation

I would really rather this not turn into an ethnic conflict, but it seems the whole croatian linguistic society is busy trying to ban the use of Cyrillic on Wikipedia. I DO NOT consider mr. Amatulic's opinion neutral as his page points to his croatian heritage. Therefore I shall request a mediation and stress my points once more.

• The Cyrillic characters used for the transliteration of the article so far are available as of unicode 1.0
• They do not replace of remove the Latin transcription in the article, just aim to extend it and give the interested user more detailed information
• Cyrillic was the script in which OCS was written in almost all countries that originally spoke the language and even today is used by the orthodox church
• Latin script was actually never used to write actual OCS content, it is only used as a mean to facilitate learning OCS for non-slavic speakers. For example in english or latin language grammars (and possibly croatian)
• Even the latin transcription that Ivan uses includes some cyrillic characters that are not available in the extended latin script

(ъ,ь,...)

• Cyrillic does add to the clarity of the article as it is specially developed to represent slavic phonology and especially OCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellion8513 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

--Hellion8513 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You've transliterated one sub-sub-section of the article, that uses like 10 different letters. You argue that it worked for that atypical case, but it won't work for the entire article. Let's take a bigger picture into the account: it simply won't work. Overwhelming majority of the readers would get empty boxes because they lack necessary fonts.
• They add no useful additional information, other than being a needless clutter. Tomorrow another user will complain that we should also add Glagolitic spellings of all OCS words, which should increase article size by another 30%.
• OCS was a literary, not spoken language. It was originally written in Glagolitic and has had lively Glagolitic Church Slavonic traditions for centuries since its inception. In particular, prolific Croatian Church Slavonic tradition produced Glaglitic missals all the way to late 19th century.
• Yes! That's exactly the reason why we should use it too. Basically all of the Wikipedia articles for other ancient languages utilizing obscure (and not so obscure) scripts that need special fonts use some form of scholarly transcription. See Vedic Sanskrit grammar, Gothic declension, Old Persian language, Hittite language, Avestan language etc.
• Yers are usually transliterated as themselves (ъ,ь). That's the common Slavicist practice.
• Actually, it was Glagolitic that was originally devised to represent OCS; see Relationship_of_Cyrillic_and_Glagolitic_alphabets#Question_of_precedence. Cyrillic scripts came from cursive Greek, with letters representing typical Slavic sounds not found in Greek being "stolen" from Glagolitic.
• I also assure you that this has nothing to do with ethnic background of your interlocutors. You're too paranoid and lacking real arguments, so you make up silly conspiracy theories. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hellion8513: The only person making an ethnic issue out of this is you. My heritage has no bearing on my opinion. I was born in the US, my parents are Croatian and German. At the time Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, and all the childrens books I inherited from my father were in Cyrillic. I took the trouble to learn the alphabet because I liked it. I didn't even know Croatia used the Latin alphabet until I visited there as an adult.

Your arguments don't address the fact that using characters that aren't visible by most Wikipedians doesn't add value to the article or clarify anything. I certainly don't mind seeing Cyrillic in articles, but I do mind when someone insists on adding pointless cruft. Your arguments would have more merit on a Slavic language Wikipedia, but a rationale that such characters "give the interested user more detailed information" has no merit if most readers can't view them anyway. I honestly don't see the point of including such characters here, when the benefit is near zero. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

коњугација

Believe it or not, I stumbled upon wikt:коњугација (i.e. it wasn't a result of wikistalking you :) ). Since I don't have (and I'm lazy to make) a wiktionary account and cannot move it, may I ask you to fix it yourself? Namely, the proper Cyrillic spelling (and pronunciation) is конјугација, not коњугација. Check with Google; granted, most hits for коњугација stem from Serbian Wikipedia, which should be definitive proof that it's wrong. The word originates from Latin, therefore the merging does not take place. Similar case is with "konjunkcija", "konjunktiv"; there are couple of hundreds words (mostly obscure) where "d+ž", "n+j" and "l+j" do not merge. No such user (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these ought to be fixed. The problem is that in colloquial speech these are actually never spoken as two distinct sounds, and that it's just one of those failed prescribed rules that never took off, so people "make errors" in spelling which are actually not errors, because that's how these words are actually spoken... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's one of those "failed prescribed rules" and that it's "how these words are actually spoken" -- anyone with basic knowledge should know how it is pronounced, and those words aren't exactly everyday ones. And I consider myself a [moderate] descriptivist. We could use "инјекција" vs. "ињекција" as the most common example; for what it's worth, I was taught in basic school about it, and it wins the google fight 3:1 (well, at least in Cyrillic version). Granted, Cyrillic here really helps, because proper spelling forces you to proper pronunciation; in Latin, the ambiguity remains.
Not a reliable source (well, the dictionary is), but here's a list of such words:[14] No such user (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...anyone with basic knowledge should know how it is pronounced. - Aye, that's the rub! You need to know it, it's not something 100% intuitive. The problem is that the sequence nj is pronounced as two distinct sounds only in a handful of learned borrowings, which are normally encountered by people very late during in their education. By that time, the equation њ=nj=њ is firmly imprinted into one's subconsciousness. One utters it as two distinct sounds only after paying careful attention to it. Words with diphonemic dž are another category - in almost all the cases these occur at a morpheme boundary, and it makes a lot of sense to utter them as two distinct sounds. Thanks for the list, it will be very useful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case regarding Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hello Ivan Štambuk and sorry for intruding; however, a request for mediation has been filed here. If both parties agree, Philknight and I would be glad to try and help you out! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Image of Bogdan Bogdanović

There is an image of B. B. on the Serbo-Croatian WP: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Bogdan_Bogdanović.jpg. Can you tell whether this image is free (i. e. could be copied to enwiki or to Commons without copyright violation)? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer instead of Ivan: no. The image is apparently lifted from http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/kultur/aktuell/die_phantome_des_baumeisters_1.2247864.html. No such user (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Ivane. I was wondering, do you have a cdopy, or access to the article by Ante Milosevic about cultural continuity in Dalmatia, from O kontinuitetu kasnoantičkih proizvoda u materijalnoj kulturi ranoga srednjeg vijeka na prostoru Dalmacije, Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža. Exegi monumentum, Znanstvena izdanja 3, Zagreb. ? Hxseek (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting developments...

...at Croatian grammar and Serbo-Croatian grammar - drop by sometime... (OK, maybe not exactly "interesting", but still...) GregorB (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-15/Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hi, I'm just dropping by to let you know that I've just closed the case, as hellion8513 (talk · contribs), the requesting party, hasn't edited since. Regards. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Biblija kajkavski

Zdravo! A ti ne veš kdo je avtor kajkavske Nove zaveze? Moja lektorica na univerzi mi je rekla, da dve leti videla v hrvaški televiziji, da hočejo prevesti Sveto pismo v kajkavski jezik, ampak se ne spomni, kdo je bil prevoditelj. Doncsecz^talk 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Kajkavian languge". Kajkavian is a bunch of dialects some of which are not even mutually intelligible. I have no idea who wrote the abovelinked text. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kajkavian

Hi, I was just wondering if you could confirm that I'm not going crazy or something. In the second paragraph of the introduction in the article on Kajkavian it's written that Kajkavian is a fusion of Štokavian and Croatian Čakavian. Is this even correct or justifiable in diachronic linguistics? I learned that Kajkavian has been something separate since the fragmentation of Proto-Slavonic and recall an article by Marc (not Robert) Greenberg discussing the problem of assuming Kajkavian to be a predominantly Croatian dialect (as is now conventional but pushed first by Croatian intellectuals). He observed the trickiness in Croats' incorporating of Kajkavian's development as part of Serbo-Croatian. What I got out of it was that with a fair amount of philological or linguistic justification, Kajkavian can be viewed less as a Croatian dialect and more as a Slovenian one, regardless of what Croats have stated.

Here's a link to Marc Greenberg's article (in particular, look at the section titled "Reinventing the past: Junkovic on the ancient relations of Slovene and Kajkavian, and the Serbo-Croatian question" that starts of pg. 8): http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/969/1/yugoslav_myths96.pdf Vput (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was BS. Croatian nationalists have a predilection for bending reality to suit their make-believe. That whole article needs a thorough rewrite. The map on the bottom is also a century out of date, as Štokavian mercilessly obliterated most of the peasant speech on its way. Yes, Kajkavian is much more connected to Slovenian dialects just across the border, than anything Čakavian or Štokavian. There was lots of historical contention regarding that - once the nation-states where carved out of thin air in the 19th century, their brainwashed proponents sought to encompass as much as territory or population as possible, on the basis of the fallacious inference such as "if most of the people speaking dialect/language X call themselves Y, then all of the people speaking dialect/language Y are Y". When it comes to Slavic dialects, simply all the ethnic/national designation should be dropped and new ideologically-detached names should be made up as replacements. (A combination of letters and numbers as in genetics would certainly be more preferable). When Proto-Slavic dialects disintegrated in situ in the 9th-10th centuries, all of its speakers still called themselves "Slavs" (= "those speaking Slavic"). Greenberg's article looks fantastic, thanks for sharing the link :D BTW, you should check Kordić's recent book [15], it's a seminal work in dismantling a sea of lies proping up the "Croatian studies" of the last 2 decades. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up and I see that the statement in question has now been removed. Add Marc Greenberg's article to the list of reputable Western scholarship on Southern Slavonic languages. Hvala na linku o knjizi Snežane Kordić ali na žalost ne znam dobro štokavski. Vput (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Croatian language

I suggest that you revert yourself here. I don't care one way or another, but I'd rather have that crap publicly visible for anybody to see the "strength" of their argument; WP:RPA is a controversial practice. Those folks should be given enough shovels to dig themselves a deep enough hole; they're doing it fairly well already. Suggested reading WP:COOL. No such user (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi Ivan,

I left a request at Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_Serbo-Croatian#request, in case those are names you're familiar with. I don't know the accents. (Though most of our SC transcriptions lack accents, so it probably doesn't matter much for these: if no-one responds, I'll just fix up the Cs & Vs.) — kwami (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ivane Štambuče!

Kao prvo pozdrav iz Sinja.

Kao drugo; "Šta napravi čovječe?", a pod tim mislim da si trajno narušio ugled, tradiciju, opstojnost, postojanost, razvoj,.... hrvatskog jezika kao cijeline ne samo na wikipediji nego i u svijetu općenito svojim radom na člancima koji su vezani za hrvatski jezik na en.wiki i rječniku. Uz svesrdnu pomoć suradnika koji nema pojma o jezičnom nasljeđu i jeziku prostora Hrvatske, BiH, Srbije i Crne Gore, citiram ga

Yes, we all know there are books on Croatian grammar. So what? It's practically identical to Serbian grammar, and from that POV the two are a single language. This was the consensus on Wikipedia, as well as all non-Croatian (and many Croatian) sources. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) (radi praktično indentičnog i konsenzusa zajednice imamo pogrešan POV)

Ne znam iz kojeg razloga si bio ponukan na takvo djelovanje jer ja osobno ne pronalazim razloge sjedinjavanja hrvatskog jezika sa srbskim (i obrnuto) na bilo kojoj osnovi. Povijesno gledano većina znanstvenih referenci koja se odnosi na hrvatski jezik, srbski jezik, srbsko hrvatski i hrvatsko srbski jezik su sami po sebi nastali političkim utjecajem na području bivše Jugoslavije, Kraljevina SHS|Kraljevine SHS i Austrougarske. Za vrijeme Austrougarske i sam znaš da želja naroda područja tadašnje "Hrvatske" bila da se oslobodi čizme germanizacije i mađarizacije u bilo kojem obliku te se narod (Ilirski pokret)priklanja hrvatskom jeziku i jezicima koji su mu "srodni" (slični) da bi pod istim našli zaštitu vlastitog jezičnog nasljeđa, i uz pomoć toga se narod bori (Kukuljevićev govor u saboru). Samim time (borbom) i jugoslavenstvo (svi južni slaveni pod "istom kapom") se rađa. Nastankom Kraljevine SHS i spajanjem teritorija na kojima se govori hrvatski jezik i teritorija na kojima je srpski jezik primaran javlja se ideja o sjedinjavanju ta dva jezika koja će u SFRJ i konačno zaživiti ali u smislu zatiranja nacionalnih indentiteta svih naroda i narodnosti SFRJ nešto što će narode Jugoslavije trajno spajati i omogućiti im razumjevanje na posebnoj jezičnoj razini. Samo se ispostavilo da ono što nas spaja, da nas i razdvaja. Ljudi, pojedinci su u zatvorima stare Juge gulili drakonske kazne zbog uvrede jezika i slova drugog naroda naročito ćirilice i srpskog jezika kao takvog.

Npr. Želježnički službenik (srbin inače) iz Knina učestalo je provodio preglede teretnih vlakova iz Niša te pregledavao transportne listove pisane ćirilicom. Premda odličan govornik srpskog jezika i odličan poznavatelj (čitalac) ćirilice često je imao problema sa čitanjem rukom napisanih ćiriličnih teretnih listova pojedinih autora iz Niša. Vođen time da si olakša život da ne mora zvati svaki put u Niš prevoditelja za pojedini transportni list, napiše jednu zamolbu u kojoj traži od službenika u Nišu da čitkije piše ćirilcu i brojeve na transportnim listovima jer on nemože pročitati "švrakopis". Za ovu svoju zamolbu je želježnički službenik kolodvora u Kninu na osnovu uvrede naroda i narodnosti dobio 2 godine robije u Lepoglavi.

Politika nema veze sa jezikom? Ili ima? Represija koja je zbog tvog djelovanja na člancima koji su vezani za hrvatski jezik na en. wiki ista je ona represija koju je provodio režim bivše Juge samo što suradnici koji se usprotive tom ne idu u Lepoglavu, Zenicu ili što već, nego idu na blocklist. Svjesno ili nesvjesno radio ti to iz nekih svojih ideala, nepoznatih razloga, kurtoazije ili što već moram reći da si naštetio hrvatskom jezik, srbskom jeziku, bosanskom jeziku, crnogorskom jeziku i samim time ugnjetavaš suradnike koji su nacinalno svjesni (po svemu viđenom ti ćeš reći da su nacionalisti) a na wikipediju dolaze iz Hrvatske, BiH, Srbije i Crne Gore. Ja sam nacionalist; u smislu da volim svoj narod, svoj jezik i svoju zemlju a nisam nacionalist zato što mrzim neki drugi narod, neku drugu zemlju i neki drugi jezik. Ja smatram da je moj narod je moj narod, moj jezik je moj jezik, moja zemlja je moja zemlja. Tuđe ne želim niti bih uzeo, al moje nek ostave na miru.

Po mom mišljenju bilo bi pametno ukoliko su pojedini jezični članci vezani za hrvatski, srbski, srbsko-hrvatski, hrvatsko-srbski, crnogorski jezik preklapaju informacijama, referencama, jezičnim normama ....da ne nabrajam dalje ne svode pod jedan srbsko-hrvatski, hrvatsko-srbski ili što već, nego da se razdvoje svaki za sebe hrvatski pod hrvatski, srbski pod srbski, bosanski pod bosanski, crnogorski pod crnogorski, srbsko-hrvatski pod srbsko-hrvatski a da se u samim člancima navede da su dio jezične skupine koja pripada južnoslavenskim jezicima koji imaju istu izvorišnu terminologiju vezanu za sam jezik. Samim time bi se omogućio kraj ovoj agoniji hrvatskog jezika na en. wiki i omogućilo suradnicima (s područja Jugoslavije) koji uređuju iste čanke da im ne upada trn u oko radi pojedinih jezičnih objašnjenja koja sad imamo na pojedinim jezicima. Time bi se smanjio broj vandaliziranja istih članaka, broj blokiranih suradnika, broj članaka zaštićenih za uređivanje a i ti bi imao manje posla :).

Kao treće (ironično) Hvala! --Domjanovich (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Ako imaš nešto za odgovorit (premda nije potrebno) molio bih lijepo na moju stranicu.

Comments on other editors

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Croatian language. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. While you are fine to discuss content issues with other users, please do so without attacking other users. Thank you. This issue is being discussed at WP:WQA. Netalarm^talk 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescinding comment. I just noticed that this was about an issue a month ago. I'll go ahead and mark the WQA report as archived, as it seems that the reporting user has posted about this a while ago. Netalarm^talk 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly has been complaining and where? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IŠ, it was our old friend Kubura. Vput (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

This is what you wrote as a reply to me on [16] Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst) recruited from Croatian Wikipedia repeatedly demonstrates exceptional ignorance and a propensity to fabricate history. . This kind of attack is against Wikipedia policies, and such name calling. I do not deserve to be treated like this. Vodomar (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do. Don't make me translate the propaganda from Croatian wikipedia where I and others are called by much harsher names by you and your associates, without you so much raising an eyebrow (which you should as one of the admins there). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a threat or a warning, or both ? Vodomar (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian linguists and attitudes

Though it's not my intention to frustrate you by having you repeat something that you may have already said multiple times, trying to access your viewpoint in previous discussions would mean scouring the archives of multiple articles and user talk pages, which elicits a WP:TLDR glaze in my eyes just thinking about it. With that in mind, I have two issues that I'd like to discuss with you (either here or at my talk page):

• What is the criteria of determining whether Croatian linguists are reliable or not? For example, you mention that Brozović, Katičić, Babić, and Laden are "proven history fabricators." What is the basis of this? How do we determine which Croatian linguists are academically dishonest nutjobs and which aren't?
• I'm getting the impression from other Croatian editors that most Croats have a problem with calling their language Serbo-Croatian or part of a Serbo-Croatian diasystem and from you that most Croats don't care. Is there a way of knowing which is correct (polls, statistical data)?

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)