Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Extra sections

As part of the Serbo-Croatian article there must be a subsection with the genetic linguistics and sociolinguistic analysis. This would be fair to all the reader Also the section Name should be renamed The name controversy . All viewpoints should be present, let the reader decide. Also Kwamikagami since you are a main contributor in the South Slavic linguistic space it is a conflict of interest for you to have placed the article in a special state, as well as conduct reverts of some of the edits (vandalism/graffiti reversals are fine) Vodomar (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar, do not accuse Kwami of things that he has not done. The only "special state" that this article is in is that it is semi-protected. It isn't at the present time under the 1RR restriction that Croatian language is under (and Kwami didn't place it under 1RR, Courcelles did). Kubura is acting like a child falsely accusing those who don't share his POV of all sorts of things that they aren't guilty of. You have not done that in the past, so please don't follow Kubura's disruptive lead and start false accusations yourself. There are enough admins watching this discussion who aren't involved that if Kwami actually does something inappropriate, they will see it themselves. --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this controversy over the reference of the name in English should be clarified in the body of the article. I assume that we are in agreement that there are two references for "Serbo-Croatian" in English--one is the name of the language that comprises the mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects, the other is the name of the official standard language of Yugoslavia based on Shtokavian that is now called Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. The former is alive and well, the latter is depricated and no longer used. --Taivo (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

just out of curiosity -- if the term "serbo-croatian" is still in use in linguistics, are there terms that specify the other variants as well, such as "croato-croatian" and "serbo-serbian"?esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(Standard) Croatian and (Standard) Serbian. — kwami (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so do you agree there is space in this article to talk about the name controversy and to give the two explanations that is genetic and socio-linguistic view of the term Serbo-Croatian. Also the term Serbo-Croatian should also say this talks about the language group as separate from the Serbo-Croatian used in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and SFRY. My appologies to Kwamikgami. If we have an agreement, then we can go ahead and do some editing. Vodomar (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I once proposed that we split this article, with Standard Serbo-Croatian for the Yugoslav-era standard and this article specifically for the Serb-Croat-Bosniak dachsprache. I didn't garner any support, but I still think it's a good idea.

I think discussion of the controversy up to a point is desirable. It shouldn't dominate the article, though, since the article is supposed to be about the language. If it gets too long, the controversy section should be split off to an article of its own. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the discussion begins to take up more than a paragraph, or begins to send tentacles into other parts of the article, then it should be a separate article. --Taivo (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having a short paragraph is good enough. The controversy about the name has the result of many countless kB on this talk page. This needs to be laid to rest. The split-up has support and it would be welcomed by everyone who participates in the debate on this subject. This would also make a good separation of the two issues. Tavio I do not like to be compared to other users, I work on my own. I show respect to everyone, and it based on merit. Vodomar (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar, the proof is in the pudding. You have, indeed, shown a willingness to work toward consensus here. --Taivo (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the split was rejected once, I'll make a proposal below for formal discussion.

Yes, although we haven't always worked well together, you have shown that you're able to work with opposing points of view.

You might want to propose the wording for a paragraph that's not already or not sufficiently covered by the 'present situation' section. — kwami (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement "differences between British and American English is the same as the difference between Serbian and Croatian language" is fallacy that is evident from following example:

• "Salt (NaCl) is chemical compound of sodium and chlorine and is soluble in water, which has chemical formula H₂O, and consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen", and this sentence is same in both British and American English.

In Croatian it would be:

• "Sol (NaCl) je kemijski spoj natrija i klora koji je topiv u vodi, čija je kemijska formula H₂O, i čine ju dva atoma vodika i jedan atom kisika", and in Serbian it is:
• "So (NaCl) je hemijsko jedinjenje natrijuma i hlora, i otopiva je u vodi, koja ima hemijsku formulu H₂O, sastoji se od dva atoma vodonika i jednog atoma kiseonika".

Even ignorants which claim that "differences between British and American English is the same as the difference between Serbian and Croatian language" can see actual similarity of British/American and differences between Croatian and Serbian languages. --Roberta F. (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Roberta, it's easy to cherry-pick sentences that have identical British and American variants, but slightly different Serbian and Croatian variants. "Put the spanner in the lorry's boot" and "Put the wrench in the truck's trunk" are also radically different between British and American English, but they're still the same language. Indeed, a quick perusal of the Dictionary of American Regional English shows thousands of lexical differences between mutually intelligible subdialects of American English. Your example proves nothing. Reliable scholars and sources uniformly say that Serbian and Croatian share a very high degree of mutual intelligibilty. Indeed, these sources show that a Croat living on one side of the street and a Serb living on the other side of the street wouldn't know that one was speaking Croatian and the other was speaking Serbian because the difference is ethnically based, not linguistically based. --Taivo (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when Croats use ironic answers. --Pepsi Lite (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dude! Like throw the fuckin wrench in the trunk o' the truck!

Toss the bloody spanner in the lorry's boot, won't you ol' chap?

See, two completely different languages! English is spoken in England! — kwami (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

numbers 1-10: jedan, dva, tri, četiri, pet, šest, sedam, osam, devet, deset - all the same

verb "to be" in present: sam, si, je, smo, ste, su - all the same

basic body parts: ruka, glava, noga, leđa, zub, oko, nos, usta, prst, koljeno, etc. - all the same

Swadesh list has 99 same entries out of 100.

On the other hand, 9 out of 10 Croats on the street don't even know what natrijev klorid is. From their viewpoint you might as well used any obscure scientific term and ask them what does that term mean, and if they said no (as they would in 99% of cases), you could use it as a proof that it's "different language".

The differences between languages are not measured in vocabulary. They are measured in their structure - the grammar. As long as the core of the grammar is the same - which is the same of modern Serbo-Croatian varieties all drawing on the same dialectal basis - lexical deviations are irrelevant. Either complete or minor. And the differences between American and British English are much larger than that of between modern Serbo-Croatian varieties. You're confused with orthographical differences which are trivial in character, can be intuitively learned and recognized, but don't present any communication obstacle. kemija : hemija, klor: hlor etc. Serbo-Croatian has phonological orthography and sounds are written as they are spoken, whilst English has etymological-morphological orthography and they are written not as they are spoken, but according to their history. The differences between English varieties are much bigger than it can possibly be conveyed by writing, while SC differences are as big as much as it could possibly be conveyed by writing.

Besides, anybody familiar with linguistics would also ask about similarities in inflection and syntax. Are klor and hlor, kemijski and hemijski reaaally so different? They have the same accentuation klȏr /klôːr/ : hlȏr /xlôːr/, kémījskī /kěːmiːjskiː/ : hémījskī /xěːmiːjskiː/, and the same inflection in dozens of different forms, see: wikt:klor#Serbo-Croatian wikt:hlor#Serbo-Croatian, wikt:kemijski#Serbo-Croatian : wikt:hemijski#Serbo-Croatian. The differences are simply dwarfed by similarities, which you completely ignore. Those two sentences of yours have all the same inflectional morphemes in every single bloody word. Some of those differences are completely artificial: in both Croatian and Serbian Serbo-Croatian topiv and otopiv are valid and synonymous words, činiti and sastojati se mean a bit different things, but are synonymous and mutually exchangeable in either variant in this particular meaning, and the same goes for the syntactical formation koja ima kemijsku formu and čija je kemijska formula are also perfectly valid in both variants. But this is quite cunning of you. You deliberately used different conjunctions that govern different cases, so that it would appear more "different". Not to mention that in Serbian example you used forma instead of much more common formula, whose sin is that it is the same as Croatian....

Look Roberta, nobody here disputes that differences exist - they do, and even in Communist Yugoslavia that was acknowledged, and tho different literary forms were equally fostered and legally recognized. The problem is that these differences in purely linguistic terms don't account much. I'm sure you attach much patriotic zeal to "proper" words, but you must understand that not everybody shares the same sentiments. Those differences are no different in magnitude than those of other pluricentric languages with different national varieties such as English, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Hundustani, Armenian etc. Playing dumb and insisting that they "truly are" in presence of a knowledgeable speaker that is willing to expose your deception is pointless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought this ref might be of some interest:

Janneke Kalsbeek, 1998, The Čakavian dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria

[intro] Linguists need a label to enable them to refer to SCr, and in Slavic studies as conducted outside the former Yugoslavia, the compound label "Serbo-Croatian" has traditionally served as a neutral designation. However, the use of such compound labels has tended to raise protests among speakers of the language, who have learned to perceive compounds as carriers of a political message which many people do not like. [...]

"The linguist will say: there is a single lingistic system and two norms. If language means 'linguistic system', there is only a single one. If language means 'norm', there are two. But the public demands from him an unambiguous answer to the question 'Is it one language or two?' They believe that their ethnic identity depends on it and everything has been done to incite them to believe that." [...]

Although I realize that some speakers of the language will object to my use of the label "Serbo-Croatian" I trust that they will understand that no practical alternative is currently available and will keep in mind the traditional nature of the designation: "Among foreign linguists, the most usual term is Serbocroatian, following the principle by which various compound linguistic terms are formed on the basis of their most extreme members, e.g. the Indo-European languages [...]

A couple other comments were interesting re. our ongoing debate:

Standard Croatian and Serbian are based on a form of the central dialects of Štokavian, as codified by Vuk Karadžić and other nineteenth-century scholars (both Serbs and Croats), initially on the basis of Vuk's own idiolect.

and

Kajkavian possesses features which clearly distinguish it both from "Čakavian"/"Štokavian" and from adjacent Slovenian. ... Čakavian and Štokavian together make up a continuum.

— kwami (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Myth"

Ivan Štambuk wrote above "The whole "unitarism" thing is a one big myth. Communist paid special attention to nurture multiculturalism. In Istria kids were taught Italian and Serbo-Croatian, and in multiethnic Vojvodina there were 5 official languages. The myth of "suffering" and "oppression" is characteristic of nationalism."
Ivan Štambuk, please: write this in a letter to the Croatian daily newspapers. Go public. Feel the challenges of the real world. Feel the challenges of scientific community. Don't hide behind Wikipedia and virtual world.
There's a ton of material written about the Dorian Gray of Yugo-"multiculturalism". Tip: were the Croats and Albanians the absolute majority of Yugoslav political prisoners? Why there were only "ustashi" words, but not "chetnik" words? Why Yugoslav authorities persecuted solely Croatian scientists and writers because they wanted to "separate Croatian and Serbian" and "to profound the differences between Croatian and Serbian"? Why there was no Serbian scientist/writer that was persecuted because of that? Why Croats were emphasising that Croatian ≠ Serbian, unlike Serbs?
When was Croatian official in Vojvodina? When it stopped to be official?
When was "Serbo-Croatian" learned in Istria? SR Croatia knew only Croatian language and 1971-1989 "Croatian or Serbian" (in SR Serbia, Yugoslav Army... was "Serbocroatian").
Štambuk cited magazine Jezik from 1960's. In those years authors mentioned the examples of degradating of Croatian to bare "regional dialect", compared to Serbian language, that was treated as "one and true standard". Kubura (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Croats, when do you plan to undo the damage caused by Ljudevit Gaj, Tomislav Maretić and others? When will you guys undo Đuro Daničić's change of dj to đ? --Pepsi Lite (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Pepsi Lite, you've posted your message in the wrong section. Kubura (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, I have no desire to teach you basic history. I suggest that you read some books on the issues involved and ask older and knowledgeable Croats that have lived in the times of "repressive" Yugoslavia. It's really interesting how vast majority of them have positive memories about it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

if with "vast majority" you mean two of the three people you talked to, then yes. otherwise, you should yourself follow the advice you gave above.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

alt dialect map

Map of Serbo-Croatian ("Croatian") dialects in Croatia and BiH before migrations.

Distribution of Chakavian, Kajkavian and Western Shtokavian before migrations.

Other than the fact that SC is called "Croatian", might this map of the dialects before the migrations (left) be more accurate than the pastel-colored one we currently have (right)? I'm thinking of the Ča-Kaj border. (Though the southern end of Chakavian is suspiciously current in both maps.) — kwami (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwarami, left map is more correct. You can see here [1] that I opened discusion on croatian Cha-Kaj dialect border, but it was not answered. Right map shows current border of Kajkavian dialects on which was superimposed ancient westerm borders ow western shtokavian (with some errors). Dialects of Gorski Kotar and Ozalj are kajkavized chakavian (in 17th, 18th and begining of 19th century when Kajkavian was official in "Civil Croatia" and that territory was part of it). Dialects of Banovina were kajkavian and lower pounje before the migrations as those areas were part of Zagreb diocese and there was rich church literaly legacy in parishes around Dubica and Kostajnica....

Also eastern border of western shtokavian in the right map is incorect. It is more eastern and area around Boka kotorska was part of western shtokavian as well as parts of western Syrmia around Ilok which were part of Vuka županija, and which included parts of which is today Serbian Syrmia. Border of dialects in Herzegovina was near old Travunia - Zahumlje border (near Ljubinje), and town of Srebrenica and parts of Semberia were also part of western Shtokavian... Čeha (razgovor) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So the "Croatian" map is more accurate, apart from it not being Croatian? We could redo it on a map of all the republics. Do you have any refs that could be used to cite it? It only sources itself. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got book of Josip Lisac [2], see also borders of western and eastern shtokavian in Boka (Boka had majority of catholics at that time). Also here are discussed eastern borders of kajkavian dialect before great migrations which are thought to include most of Zagreb diocesse. Although there are also opinions that it's borders were more eastern (till Požega and Brod) there are not many concrete evidences for that thesis [3]. Past borders between Kajkavian and Chacavian dialects are also discussed on those pages, but probably more literature you can find in Croatian highschool textboox and Ozalj circle (that's 2.nd or 3.rd grade) pages. As I wrote before dialects in Gorski kotar and Pokuplje are kajkavized chakawian dialects. Ozalj circle was a circle of Croatian nobility which tried to write in that kajkawized chakavian, as hybrid dialect with properties from all 3 Croat dialects (also it is important to state that was ikavian :).

As for the language name, we will not agree so it is useless to waste words. The matter is that those were the borders of its dialects at the time, and that's the only thing important, so you can fix the pastell map.... Čeha (razgovor) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so pretty much all of BiH was Croat at the time? — kwami (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ozalj literary circle used an artificial literary language, not spoken, and was practiced in a tiny geographical area and temporal period, by a small group of writers. I can confirm that the map on the right is more or less completely in sync with the map in the Josip Lisac's book, page 164. To my knowledge, is no such thing as "Kajkavianized Chakavian". Lisac's map colors the Montenegrin part of Boka kotorska as Eastern Štokavian. I must also express my suspicion as regards the motivations of Čeha's comments: he seems to be more inclined to color the maps along ethnic/religious lines, rather than along real-world isoglosses. These ancient maps area are a result of an approximating reconstruction, not a fieldwork synthesis. The differences between Western and Eastern Shtokavian were relatively minor at that time - mostly in accentuation and some inflectional endings. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ozalj Literaly circle used combined literaly language which was mostly made of that dialect (it also included some tracts of other croatian dialects, but it's core was Ozalj dialect). As I said before that data can be found in any Croatian high school book.

Štambuk, if you did not hear for it it does not mean that it does not exists. Kajkavized Chakavian in Gorski kotar and Pokuplje is common knowledge, thing which is learn in high school :) those are transitional dialects which were kajkavized in the time till the 19th century and theirs borders are the same as the borders of civil Croatia [4], as official Croatian was Kajkavian. Rijeka and seaside around the Kvarner bay was not entire time part of the Croatia, and had a separate bodies so the Chakavian dialects stuck there (you can found maps of borders between Rijeka and civil Croatia in old Yugoslav Atlas). Borders of civil Croatia in 18th century in the area of Gorski kotar are "roughly" borders of Kajkavian dialect. Differences between Western and Eastern Shtokavian at the time are found in wording, greek inflouences, etc. Western Shtokavian was (at least partly) Schakavian while Eastern was not. Also Western Shtokavian possesed transitional Chakavian features.... I'm not going to answer ad hominem attacks. As for source map, are you sure? Because descriptions on those pages should have been taken from that map, and than that is not the same border.

Kwamikagami are you realy trying to discuss ethnogenesis on the territory of BiH at the language grounds? Čeha (razgovor) 09:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I do remember learning about ozaljski književni krug in high school. But that was all there is to it - a literary, not spoken language, used in a particular timeframe by a small circle of writers. It is an artificial literary language, not something that you can color on a dialect map. It's completely irrelevant and I don't know why you're bringing this up at all. I'm sure it fits nicely into some pan-Croatian fantasy of "tridialectalism" but it's irrelevant.

As I said, to my knowledge there is no such thing as "Kajkavianizad Chakavian". If you are referring to transitional areas where dialects exhibiting characteristic isoglosses of both Cha and Kaj dialects are spoken - that's an entirely different thing. Such things are expected as the entire South Slavic area at that period made a big dialect continuum. But when you say "Kajkavianized Chakavian" it implies a Chakavian substratum sprinkled with Kajkavian words, and as I said to my knowledge there is no such thing. You're making that nonsense up. I have Lisac's and Moguš's monographies on Čakavian dialects and nowhere is that even mentioned. Moguš explicitly states that all the transitional dialects with Čakvian basis but a few typically Kajakvian isoglosses are traditionally classified as Čakavian (..u mnogim mjesnim govorima na graničnim područjima mogu čuti poneke štokavske ili kajkavske crte, odnosno ima govora gdje je čakavsku bazu prekrila ova ili ona nečakavska izaglosa. To su prijelazni govori koje obično nazivamo čakavsko-štokavskima ili čakavsko-kajkavskima. Budući da su u takvim govorima čakavske karakteristike u većini, smatramo ih čakavskima pridružujemo ih "klasičnim" čakavskim govorima.)

Rijeka today is completely Štokavianized, and soon all of the Kvarner will be too. Čakavian and Kajkavian are going the way of the dodo, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it :>

As I said, the differences between Western and Eastern Štokavian are primarily in accentuation and the preference for some inflectional endings. It's interesting how you bring the "Greek influence" into equation. You simply can't help your self to fit these isoglosses into some kind of civilizational, cultural, ethnic border too. You repeatedly mention religion of the speakers, medieval kingdoms, civilizational influences (Eastern are more "Greek" = Orthodox, while Western are more "Romance" = Catholic). I am sorry to disappoint you but this is very far from reality. Linguistic isoglosses seldom correspond to ethnic borders. That's because imaginary collective identities such as nation, ethnicity or religion are usually superimposed on real-world differences which are much older than them. Both Croats and Serbs would like to claim "historical right" on those Western Štokavian chunk of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but we simply can't let such Greater X myths slip through and present them as historical facts.

You can find Lisac's map from the book scanned here.

Yes some (but not all) Western Shtokavian speeches shared some isoglosses with some (but not all) neighboring Čakavian dialects. Interestingly yat reflex of /i/ is not one of them, despite popular belief - these were independent innovations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your POV about Ozalj litteraly circle.

Unfortunaly number of speakers of Chakavian is shrinking (today it probably just covers parts of Istria and some islands and a few remote villages in Lika and Pokuplje). Number of Kajkavian speakers is on the other hand stagnating as a lot of people in northwest Croatia still uses kajkavian. Spoken Croatian on the national television is highly influenced by Zagreb dialect which shows some characteristics of Kajkavian (is in some ways transitional Kajkavo-shtokavian) and dialectal speach is still spoken in some towns like Varaždin, Čakovec and Krapina. So, fortunately Kaikavian is not yet gone the way of dodo :) And some words of Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects are in common usage in Croatia.

Well those things as borders of kingdoms and their feudal overlords did influence the life of the people. For example border of Pannonian Croatia and Styria was near Ptuj in 9th century. Today the border betven Croatian kajkavian dialect and Slovenian is on the state border...

And of history of Bosnian and Herzegovia I can quote Malcom in which he says that people of Bosnia and Herzegovina were akin to people in today's Croatia and if were not for Turks they would probably still be the same people. But that are what if's, and of course there is the difference between nations and peoples (nacija i naroda). But none of that has anything to do with languages (Skandinavian,Dutch-German, East Slavic,or any other language continuum can show that). Only important thing here is that there is a difference between western shtokavian and eastern shtokavian dialect. Political conotations of such things should not be solved on wikipedia. Čeha (razgovor) 09:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ozalj literary circle what what its name says it was - a literary circle of idle nobles, who in between killing serfs and catering to Church wrote some poetry in an artificial literary language. It was never spoken, and such Frankensteinian efforts to mix dialects were not repeated elsewhere. I'm sure it's nice to fit it into some grand theory of Croats finally achieving a "century-old dream" of what should be the real Croatian standard, but it's just fantasy. This is not my POV these are facts, check your history books.

Kajkavian is only spoken in villages in Zagorje. I've lived in Zagreb for 6 years, nobody speaks Kajkavian there, not even in the outskirts. Spoken Zagrebian is Štokavian phonetically infulenced by Kajkavian substratum: e.g. there is no difference between /č/ and /ć/, no differences in vowel lengths, stress-based accentual system. Kajkavian lexical items are rare (even kaj is rapidly being replaced by što/šta, because >60% of people living in Zagreb are immigrants from other regions. mostly non-Kajkavian). All Kajkavian speakers are bidialectal, and they use their mother dialect only when interacting with close family or relatives over the phone etc. With rising urbanization Kajkavian will also go the way of the dodo, although not as fast as Čakavian (whose speakers are in much more economically disadvantaged position). Yes depending on the region there are many local dialectalisms...but almost none of them enters Croatian standard. Standard is a supraregional, neutral form of a language understandable and used by all speakers. These words are therefore sub-standard.

Yes there were differences between Eastern and Western Shtokavian. They don't exist today because dialectal map is quite different, and the dialects have changed a lot. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In reality Što/Šta is rapidly replaced by Kaj combination, if you ever heard of Zagreb city speak you would be awear of that. Take just example of Zagreb major and his "kajkavization". In Zagreb and surounding area lives and works between 1/4 and 1/3 of Croatian population so it is normal to have some inovation in the spoken language. As for Croatian standard is not just easternherzegovian neoShtokavian but did include words from all three dialects in it's lexic as it do now. I'm certain that you can take any of the newer dictionaries and found words wich are not part of Shtokavian dialect. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what you said, the claim that Kajkavian is only spoken in Zagorje is a gross exaggeration. One needs to only venture a couple of kilometers outside of city limits to see that Kajkavian is indeed still used by people. Provided the communities (towns or villages in Prigorje) only have a minority of Štokavian immigrants, Kajkavian will still be used as a means of everyday communication although, obviously, if speaking with a "foreigner" the person will naturally switch to Štokavian unless the person in question is a centenarian or close to being one. Tty29a (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. We have no real idea what the borders of Croatia in the 9th cenutry was, especially Pannonia which was pretty much a constant conflict zone between Avars, Franks, Bulgars, then Magyars. Archaeology shows that it was scarcely populated before the 10th century. And Malcolm is a 'pop'- historian. No one considers him a serious historian. Again,we know next to nothing about what precise language was spoken in Bosnia in 9th century, let alone what custms they had and how they identified themselves as. Bosnia, the region itself, is not even mentioned until the 10th, and then, in one sentence. So please, use caution against making totally unsubstantiated statements Hxseek (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Originaly, Bosnia was just small state around Vrhbosna (today's Sarayevo). In 9th century there were no today's dialect, dialectalization in Cha/Shto/Kaj happened only latter (12-13 century) and these upper maps speak about 15 century situation. There is plenty of data in that centuries to speak about situation in BiH at that time. So please do read what I've wrote. As for earlier times majority of "serious" historians do put territories of today's BiH in western, Frankish sphere and majority of that area was part of Split diocenese. Anyways, please stick to the subject, and comments like "rubbish" stick to yourself.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "most of BiH" was in Croatia 9th century ? Only north-western Bosnia. Herzegovina had 3 independent duchies - Pagani, Zachlumia, Travunia. Northern Bosnia - a grey zone, who knows. Bosnia central - around Drina, probably part of Serbia in 10th century Hxseek (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful. The post-1990 version of history pushed in Croatia is one of a massive Croatian state up to the Drina. This Tolkien Kingdom was mostly created by liberally "filling-in the blanks" in the real record while taking (irredentist) Croatian myths as the basis (most of which originate from the 19th century). The only period during which we actually know Croatia probably extended through most (not all) of modern Bosnia (not Herzegovina) was during a part of the reign of King Peter Kreshimir. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, stop trolling. Map is about 15th century, has nothing to do with 9th century, nor state borders. If you wish to discuss 9th century croatian borders go to it's pages. Same goes for "Tolkien Kingdom". --Čeha (razgovor) 12:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw Hxseek, I see that you do not know where river Vrbas is situated [5]. Try google maps. Very good tool. This on the map is Una. Your map [6] is also very interesting. If you have any geographical questions I'll be glad to answer it to you on appropriate pages. Same goes from Director (and it's Tolkien's kingdom:) --Čeha (razgovor) 13:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, my post was not trolling, your post however is uncivil in its unprovoked attack. Please see WP:Wikiquette. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Director, sorry for the comment (my error), but this discussion really has nothing to do with this pages. Hxseek you made error on that map, marking different river (100 km difference). But as I said this should not be discussed here. Stick to the topic.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. The political borders were fluctuant, and poorly recorded in the deep interior in early stages (ie 9th and 10th century). Only along Dalmatian coast do we have better knowledge. Some of the maps created even by well respected scholars were quite politically motivated, both from Croatia and Serbia - both occupying most of Roman Dalmatia. Only now are some scholars starting to de-construct some of the ideological overtones in early Slav history, so Director is correct in his statement. Anyway, this does not necessarily match what people actually spoke. In the 9th century, Slavic was still being consolidated in the Balkans. Ofcourse, we know a lot more in later periods, I don't disupte that. But we should not connect the dialect people spoke with some sense of greater ethno-political affinity. Existence was very parochial even as late as 15th century Hxseek (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"The post-1990 version of history pushed in Croatia is one of a massive Croatian state up to the Drina" - Direktor lies here. There is no such version pushed in Croatia. But according to historical sources, the most of B&H WAS Croatian territory in the 9th century. 78.3.120.112 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovenia

Wrong [7]! It was obligatory for slovenian people to learn (to know) SC language while Yugoslavia existed. They learned it in school over 20 years, it was language used while serving obligatory army for men (lasted 12 months and longer). Posibility that population over 35 years of age doesn´t know SC language is small. In my opinion they know it, do they speak it I don´t think so, because, I think they equalize it whith Croatian language and state it as it. If I´m wrong, please elaborate!

Population that lives in Slovenia and speaks language clasifided as serbocroatian language should hardly be called imigrants.--Domjanovich (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. "SC" in Slovenia was identical to "SC" in JNA (Yugoslav army) - pure Serbian. Even today when Slovenes come to Croatia and start to speak "SC" they speak Serbian language. That's why we (Croats) constantly warn them not to use name 'slovenački' for their Slovene language when they come to Crotia, since Slovene language has the same name in Croatian and Slovene languages - slovenski; slovenački is Serbian name for Slovene l.

"SC". Why SC in brackets? Beacuse such language doesn't exist. All practical use of "SC" in former Yugoslavia was use of Serbian language! 78.3.120.112 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Serbian is a standard form of SC, like Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Croatian is South Slavic language, not SC. 78.0.134.118 (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But it does not change the fact that for most Slovenians it is a second/foreign language. I would venture a guess that number of L2 English speakers in Slovenia is roughly the same as number of L2 Serbo-Croatian speakers -- does that make English as a "language of Slovenia"? Since some 80+% Finns speak it, does English make a "language of Finland"? Russian as a "language of Estonia"? Etc. I'm not sure what are (and if there are any) criteria for qualifying into Category:Languages by country, but I would say it is a sufficient number of native speakers and/or officialdom at some level. I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but for me it just does not pass the threshold. No such user (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Russian is listed as a "language of Estonia" (even though it doesn't have any official status there). Though I wouldn't consider the amount of people who learned SC in school as an argument, but rather the amount of immigrants from SC speaking countries who speak SC natively (and the number of those reaches >5%) Edit #2: FWIW, Turkish is also listed as a language of Germany. Tty29a (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What about that shared dialect? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If commonplace in Slovenia merely because they had to learn it in school etc., then the category shouldn't be here. However, the Languages of Slovenia article suggests that there are descendants of the Uskoci who still speak SC natively, in which case the category seems valid. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I've added it. There are four villages in White Carniola, where people are descendants of Uskoki/Uskoci and speak a variant of the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language (as stated in the source given in the article Languages of Slovenia). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a Czech village in Serbia, but it (rightfully) isn't listed as a language of Serbia. And that nice factoid about 4 Serbo-Croatian villages in Slovenia should be moved away from the lead per heavy WP:UNDUE -- you cannot put 4 villages with 1000 300 people total to the lead of an article about the country of 2 million. Back to Slovenia, there is a number of immigrants (>5%) and their descendents who natively speak Serbo-Croatian, but then, there are also as many in Germany, Austria, or Australia. Does not break it up for me still. No such user (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Most spoken languages in Slovenia (Census 2002)

I don't know about Czech people in Serbia, but Serbs in White Carniola used their language in schools, in churches and in public life in general.[8] It was a written language. The Serbian group in Slovenia was formed in several migration waves since the 16th century. According to the Slovenian 2002 census, around 1.9 % (38.964) declared to be Serbs. After the Slovenians themselves, Serbs so appear to be the largest ethnic group in the country. And another significant minority are Croats. [9] According to the 2002 census, the population of Slovenia is very homogenous - Slovene is the first language of 87.7% of the inhabitants. It is followed by Croatian language (2.8%), Serbo-Croatian language (1.8%), Serbian language (1.6%) and Bosnian language (1.6%).[10] Italian and Hungarian language, protected by the Constitution of Slovenia, have lower numbers of native speakers but are nonetheless included in the category Languages of Slovenia. I think this is enough to include the category 'Languages of Slovenia' here and to mention these languages in the lead of the article Languages of Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. No such user (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chakavian in Dalmatia

Upon seeing these two maps I thought it might be useful to point out that they are seriously flawed/outdated. The Chakavian dialect is NOT spoken in Split and most of Dalmatia and has (rather sadly) been gone from these areas for almost 40 years. I have never, ever even heard the dialect spoken by anyone other than elderly people in the (smaller) island towns. The dialect of the people in Split, Zadar, Šibenik predominantly uses "šta" (rather than "što" or "ča"). It's quite a misrepresentation... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not really true. I'm Čakavian speaker and everybody still speeak it on the island where I live. When I come to the city I change my speaking to some kind of Čakavian/Štokavian admixture and that is actually what is spoken in Split, Šibenik and Zadar. It's not enough only to say što or šta to speak Štokavian. Honestly only administrators really speak Štokavian in Dalmatia. By vocabulary speeches in these cities are still more Čakavian based than Štokavian based. That's why other Croats immidiatelly know who is coming from Dalmatia. 78.3.120.112 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be more informative to have several maps (if someone could make them) by which we could show the historical evolution of the territory of the various dialects. This way the fairly recent marginalization of (especially) Chakavian could be made much more obvious. --JorisvS (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)