Jump to content

Talk:Croatian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peregrin Falcon (talk | contribs) at 17:50, 17 May 2014 (→‎"Croatian words"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1RR

This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian is a failed project

Serbo-Croatian is a failed political project of merging Croatian and Serbian language into one. After fall of Yugoslav regime there is no political force to push merging forward. As Serbo-Croatian newer actually existed and there is no more effort to create it, it is silly to write that Croatian is register of Serbo-Croatian, non-existing language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.191 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its existence actually far predates anything you could rightly call "Croatian" or "Serbian". --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Libar Marka Marula Splićanina u kom se uzdarži istorija svete udovice Juditu versih harvacki složena. Means Book of Marko Marulo of Split in which holds history of holy widow Judith in Croatian verses put. From year 1501.
So much of some predated existence of "Serbo-Croatian". 89.201.180.153 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marulić wrote in Čakavian dialect. Modern Croatian is based on Eastern Herzegovinian Neoštokvian dialect. These two have as much in common as e.g. Serb-Croatian and Slovene. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are admitting that Croatian language is separate language from Serbo-Croatian and Serbian. - Finally, thank you! 95.178.139.91 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, in the context you talk about, "Croatian" refers to one language that today we know as "Serbo-Croatian". Old Marul would not have told you that the language he used is a different one than that of the savages in the Ottoman Empire. It was all referred to as "Illyrian" in those days. -- Director (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the term "hrvatski" in some earlier form predates the term "srpsko-hrvatski" is irrelevant. This is not about terms, but about languages and conceptions thereof. The conceptions of a supposed "Croatian language" etc. are mostly from the 20th century. In the 19th century, people standardized Serbo-Croatian in a way that included both Croats and Serbs: They were clearly not trying to have to people think they spoke different languages. In fact, quite the opposite.
Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian are 100% identical in grammar and 99% in vocabulary: without a doubt the same language. --JorisvS (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a crucial point that's being sidelined in Croatia: the language was indeed being referred to as "Croatian", i.e. "language used by Croats" - but nowhere is it suggested that it is separate from the one used by Serbs. The concept of separate languages does indeed date from the 20th century. I'm not sure, but I believe it may even have originated with the Ustase and the NDH, or possibly earlier in the circles around the Party of Rights. -- Director (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how many linguists and historians. Please put some evidence or thesis that supports your theories. Your only sources are Vukovian quasi-linguists and Anglo-American linguists. All Vukovians are Yugoslav (Serbo-Croatian nationalists) and thus not a reliable source and all of Anglo-American "linguists" are mock by European tonglorers (linguists). Your whole concept is flawed, I don't really know why, perhaps because you have no sense for history of language, why ? well that is certain, simply because Modern English is a some sort of bastard-language which came to being by brutal rape of native Germanic English tonge by French speaking Normans, thus creating "English language". So this historical discomfort and uneasiness of raped English, makes Anglo-American "linguists" a sort of mockery. This whole article is a nothing but mockery. Croatian language is a unique language from beginning of time (from 8th century), there are tens of thousands documents, books, scripts, stone engravings... to prove that. Just because someone in 19th century decided that this two languages should be one proves nothing. And now even after 120 years of rape, Croatian bears heavy scars but is still unique and separate language. To prove otherwise please, give some real linguistic evidence to support that. But you can't, can you? 95.178.137.44 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "European tonglorer"? Timbouctou (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain that all of the best Croatian nationalist linguists (Babić, Katičić, Brozović etc.) before 1991, and some even after, claimed that Serbian and Croatian are the same language, at least from a strictly linguistic perspective? If they were lying before to suit the political climate and receive funding, how do we know that they're not lying now? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't. Every viewpoint is based on believe. Every believe is based on some form of evidence. If they lied before, it is true there is a possibility that they are lying now. But this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should stick to the reliable evidence, and point of view that most respected experts now hold, regardless of opinions they held before. And today most of respected linguists, not only from Croatia, but also from Serbia, Germany, Russia, Italy, France... hold opinion that Croatian language is separate language. And they have tons of evidence to support that, whilst all linguists that hold that there is only one "Serbo-Croatian" language, (Snježana Kordić for example) only talk about some "nationalism" and "ustašas", and does not give any real evidence to support their thesis. With this I rest my case. The article is a mockery. 95.178.137.44 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Experts now hold that Croatian is a variant of Serbo-Croatian. This has been referenced profusely. Not much more to talk about. -- Director (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes from mouth of Yugonostagic. Please grow up. 95.178.137.44 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies that linguistically B/C/S/M are the same language, not even Croatian linguists today. Sociopolitical POV from some Croatian linguists is already abundantly mentioned in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Can someone elaborate more on this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_language&diff=594193177&oldid=594192773) and why this content is being removed? Because I did not really understood what is being said in the edit summary. Isn't this article about the Croatian language in general and not just the contemporary standard? And isn't it common practice to have historical origins of the language prior to standardization? If I understood it wrong and the article is explicitly only about the contemporary Croatian standard, shouldn't there be a separate article concerning the origins, history and evolution which led to the standardization and the language we know today as Croatian (as part of the Serbo-Croatian diasystem)? Shokatz (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are 1) Kašić, Gundulić, Vrančić and others were not "Croats" in the contemporary sense because nations haven't been invented yet, so classifying them as writing Croatian is necessarily a POV of modern Croatian scholarship and needs to be put into such context 2) they didn't call their language Croatian because no such thing existed then - they used regional terms like Bosnian, Dalmatian or Illyrian so these works are justifiably legitimate as a history of e.g. Serbian/Serbo-Croatian and are in fact often described in such contexts 3) their language is not ancestral to modern Croatian (e.g. Kašić's grammar has shitload of Čakavian elements because that was his native dialect; Dubrovnik Štokavian dialect has some differences with respect to standard Serbo-Croatian..). 4) none of these works had any significant impact on the actual history of language and are largely overblown in importance. They are just grammar/dictionaries of some very specific regional dialects, and not of some indefinite notion of the "Croatian literary language". That being said, I'm not opposed to restoring it now an toning it down in parts though (e.g. the claims of standardization of Croatian before 19th century are just laughable... they cannot go in the article like that.), but it is more relevant to the article Croatian literature than here.
Yes there should be a part that specifically deals with the history of standardization efforts, but not here because it is also inextricably related to the formation of Bosnian/Serbian/Montenegrin varieties. The section ==Relation to Serbian== is full of dubious parts that need to be rewritten as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is legitimate content for Serbo-Croatian, but as Ivan has explained, their relationship to what, in a modern sense, can be called Croatian, and therefore to this article, is spurious. Therefore, it would be off-topic here, but not at Serbo-Croatian, where some of this already appears.
I agree that much of this article still needs to be rewritten. I've taken cracks at this article before, but I do lack sufficient knowledge of the specifics to be able to rewrite that section properly. --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry If I mildly disagree but saying those writers had no connection with the modern Croatian standard is like saying Anglo-Saxon or Middle English has no connection with the contemporary English standard. Such statements are spurious in itself as well. While I agree that those mentioned authors mostly associated their literary standards with the regional identity or withing a wider contexts they also specifically equaled those terms with the term Croatian. And these most definitely represent a natural succession from the 9th century to modern contemporary Croatian standard. Now perhaps I misunderstood what this article was about, I thought this was the article concerning the Croatian language in general not just and only the contemporary Croatian standard. Anyway if that is the case then I will most likely write a new article (or translate the one from Croatian Wikipedia) concerning the history of the Croatian language, I was planning to do so with a couple of other articles anyway, such as the ones about the Croatian flag or the Croatian national revival that are obviously missing from the English Wikipedia...I guess I will just add the one about the history of the Croatian language/literature as well. Shokatz (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But these do not represent a natural succession to modern standard Croatian. Croatian today in terms of language development is largely a result of efforts by Croatian Vukovians. Lexical differences don't matter at all when comparing languages, only grammar does. Articles on hrWiki are generally right-wing propaganda based on cherry-picked sources so most of them won't pass here... You are advised not to create POV-centric forks and instead collaborate on a NPOV treatment in a single place (e.g. on the article [[Serbo-Croatian]] or [[Serbo-Croatian standardization]] that would encompass all viewpoints. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying makes no sense. You say it does not represent a natural succession to modern standard Croatian since it's developed largely as a result of Vukovians, but Vukovians themselves based their work on the principles of Serbian writer Vuk Stefanović Karadžić who in turn based his reforms of the Serbian language on those same medieval and earlier authors from Croatia and Dalmatia. So how doesn't that constitute a natural succession is beyond me. I am interested in a historical aspect, not in morphology, grammar and whatnot since that is not my area of interest or expertise. Shokatz (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)An article that contains the stuff that you inserted in this article and that contains "Croatian" in its title would be a POV fork and is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. That stuff is relevant to the history of the entire language, which is most commonly called Serbo-Croatian in (modern) English, not Croatian. It should be noted at the Serbo-Croatian article, not here. Articles about the flag and national revival would be fine. A separate article on Croatian literature could, in principle, be OK, as long as there is too much to tell about it that it cannot go into this article and as long as it contains no things that are not relevant to "Croatian" in any coherent sense (i.e. the modern standard language). --JorisvS (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article in mind would refer to the period of literary Croatian tradition until the period to Croatian Vukovians. I don't see how can that be considered a POV-fork. I did not even started yet and you two are already jumping the bandwagon... Shokatz (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before 19th century there was just a number of regional literatures in dialects and Church Slavonic that had nothing to do with each other. Everything written in Štokavian is automatically a part of Serbian literature and Bosnian literature as well. These are classified as "Croatian" only today retroactively along the imaginary ethnic-national grounds, and only by some. Calling them "Croatian" is by definition discriminatory if such works are claimed by other as well (e.g. early Dubrovnikan literature is often treated as Serbian as well). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before 19th century they perhaps were regionally based but large majority of them identified their literary standards (Illyrian included) with the term Croatian. We can observe this from several grammars and dictionaries such as Mikalja, Kasic, Stulli, etc. I completely disagree with your statement, there is absolutely no connection with the literary tradition of medieval Croatia and Dalmatia with the Serbian literary tradition. Unless of course you can show me the sources which state otherwise this constitutes nothing but blatant WP:OR assertion on your part. Shokatz (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word Illyrian had many historical meanings and most of them are supra-regional. The exclusive identification of Illyrian with "Croatian" is a fabrication by modern-day nationalists-turned-linguists that seek to create an elaborate independent "timeline" for Croatian, irrespective of whatever happened in the 19th century. Which is just one POV and must be cited as such, and not as an absolute fact of reality. I can give you sources for whatever I stated you just need to ask for what particular statement. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not spin my words around. I never said exclusively anything. I said Croatian was often described simply as Illyrian or Slovinski (Slavic) language. But for these authors, such as Mikalja or Stulli for example, who based their own work on books of their predecessors such as Kasic, it was the same thing. So you claiming it's a fabrication is indeed the real fabrication. I want to see the source for this statement of yours: Everything written in Štokavian is automatically a part of Serbian literature and Bosnian literature as well. So please enlighten me since obviously I lived in a complete ignorance to the fact Ivan Gundulic, Matija Antun Relković, Andrija Kačić Miošić, etc. and several other writers are also Bosnian and Serbian writers... This is the first time I hear this. Shokatz (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand - according to modern Croatian nationalists-linguists Illyrian and Croatian were synonymous. Which then begs the question why the ancient authors in their very own dictionaries defined Illyrian as "Slavic" and "Croatian" (i.e. Croatian being less general term than Illyrian or Slavic), and not used Croatian instead in the titles of their works. It's indeed a fabrication, just like many history books in the Balkans which are not worth the paper they're printed on.
Regarding Štokavian = Serbian as well - that was the corner stone of Greater Serbianist ideology all the way since the 19th century (Vuk Stefanović Karadžić - Srbi svi i svuda). Even today old Dubrovnikan writers are classified in Serbia as an equally valid part of Serbian literature (e.g. in Deset vjekova srpske književnosti published by Matica srpska). This is of course protested by Croatian government propaganda service, I mean ministry of education ;) [1]. But, it is not up to us to side with either viewpoint, and NPOV treatment requires us to treat them in common a part of a single literary tradition, which was customary until the Balkanization in the 1990s. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying that Stulli and Mikalja (and several other authors) equaling Illyrian and Slovinski with Croatian in their books is in fact a conspiracy theory of epic proportions? Unless I understood you wrong, this is what you just said, no? Also I am quite familiar with the nationalist Serbian nonsensical claims. What you just also basically stated is that you base your previous statement on the Greater Serbia propaganda which says Croats are actually Catholic Serbs, right? Perhaps I truly don't understand...maybe I misunderstood. But anyway I consider there is nothing non-NPOV in a historical fact that Dubrovnik and Dalmatian literary tradition are part of the general Croatian literature, because we actually have those same contemporary authors referring to their language as Croatian. Unless ofc you move into politics as you just did here. Shokatz (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They did not equal anything - they provided it as a headword gloss. The semantic relationship is hypernymous not synonymous. "Croatian" is a specialized form of "Slavic" and "Illyrian". Stulli's dictionary doesn't describe language exclusively spoken by ancestors of modern-day Croats, and neither does Kašić's grammar. The interpretation of equaling is a nationalist POV of some modern Croatian linguists, AFAIK such interpretations didn't exist before 1990s. Dubrovnik and Dalmatian literature cannot exclusively be a part of Croatian literature when other peoples also claim them, and when language-wise (from the perspective of language not nation, i.e. "Croatian literature" as in "literature in Croatian language" not "literature of Croats") it makes no sense. What those modern authors think today is their modern POV - they thought differently before, and others think differently today. What you perceive as "historical facts" is just one POV that must be represented as such, and not as an absolute fact. Which then brings to the issue of content forking - i.e. whether it makes sense to have both [[Croatian literature]] and [[Serbian literature]] covering the same writers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The semantic relationship is hypernymous not synonymous. one of your assertions? On what do you base this statement? Stulli and Mikalja specifically made the suggestion it is the same thing i.e. that they were synonymous, there is nothing that suggests or confirms your assertion. This is the first time I hear of such interpretation. You call it nationalist POV of modern Croatian linguists I call it a common practice. Irish literary tradition and Irish writers (most specifically Anglo-Irish) are completely separate thing (historically) from the English literary tradition because they developed separately, even though we can consider them both in a wider sense as part of the Greater English literary tradition (linguistically). So is the case with the Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, etc. literary tradition. They belong to their respective national circle and developed separately from each other but they also belong in the wider Serbo-Croatian literary tradition, that however doesn't mean Croatian writers and their literary contribution can be considered part of Serbian literary tradition or even more that they could be considered Serbian writers...and vice versa. Both Croatian and Serbian literary tradition developed separately from each other, eventually coming closer by the end of the 19th century by creation of the standard languages based on the same dialectal base. You are here preaching me some sort of unitary dogma which never actually existed, even during the period of the ex-Yugoslavia when there were two clearly distinct variation - western (Croatian) and eastern (Serbian). I don't get this talk about forking since Croatian literature envelops much larger and wider scope including writers in kajkavian, chakavian and many latinist....which are all specific and unique features of Croatian literary tradition. I have a feeling you are talking about one thing (linguistics) and I am talking about a totally different thing (history of literature and language). Unless I misunderstood again. Shokatz (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you could have told me right away that there is a separate article Croatian literature and that would be that. :) I was completely oblivious to its existence. Having that in mind I consider your edits fair and if I indeed created another page on the matter that would have been indeed a bit over the top. So regardless of some minor differences here we discussed here I have no problems with the changes made. Only I need to look into that article because it seems to be really badly translated. I would however think it would be at least appropriate to put a link on this article linking to Croatian literature article just so we have connection between the two...is that ok? Shokatz (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1) it's always glossed as Slavic and other general terms 2) because nowhere is Croatian specifically equated with Illyrian only vice versa. Why don't Kašić, Stulli etc. name their work as Croatian? It's always Illyrian because Illyrian was then used as a regional term not only covering Catholic speakers of Štokavian. The most recent & extensive research on this topic is by Zrinka Blažević [2] [3]. The term meant different things to different people in different periods. See also this book that dispels many Croatian nationalist myths (it's available for preview, search for Illyrian).
Croatian or Serbian literary tradition couldn't have been established before the 19th century, because before that neither did Croatian or Serbian nation exist, or their literary language. Before that, there were a number of unconnected regional literatures in different dialects (Kajkavian, Čakavian and Štokavian) that had nothing to do with one another until the Illyrian movement tried to unify them. That they are now reinterpreted as a part of some deterministic historical narrative culminating in the modern-day Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian language, completely ignoring whatever happened in the 19th and 20th century is a one big joke. Of course, Croatian POV should be represented, but so should others.
I've now explored a bit and we have Canadian literature, American literature and so on beside the English literature, - so Croatian literature, Serbian literature and Bosnian literature should deal with nation-centric coverage (modern and retroactive historical), and Serbo-Croatian literature should deal from the perspective of the language. Not at all incompatible. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian or Serbian literary tradition couldn't have been established before the 19th century, because before that neither did Croatian or Serbian nation exist that can be also said of any other contemporary modern-day nation existing today as well. I strongly disagree and I will leave it at that. Shokatz (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ausbausprache

Croatian and Serbian are certainly not Abstand languages. They are not even Ausbau languages, as Ausbau languages [1] must have different dialect basis. That says Heinz Kloss, who introduced the term Ausbau languages: [2]

Kloss contrasts Ausbau languages not only with Abstand languages but also with polycentric standard languages (Stewart 1968 [3] ), i.e. two variants of the same standard, such as Serbo-Croatian, Moldavian and Rumanian, and Portuguese in Brazil and Portugal. In contrast, pairs such as Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and Danish and Swedish, are instances of literary standards based on different dialects. [4]

Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian standard variants have the same dialect basis (Štokavian). [5] Therefore Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian are Ausbausprachen, whereas Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin constitute four standard variants of the pluricentric standard Serbo-Croatian language. [6] [7] [8] [9] If the Croatian standard was Čakavian, it would be an Ausbau language.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Chakavian were the basis of Croatian, no one would have a problem calling Croatian (linguistically) a different language from Serbian, that substantial are the differences. Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and Swedish and Danish are really distinct enough to render communication rather problematic (Swedish and Danish are less mutually intelligible than Dutch and West Frisian), and hence are linguistically distinct languages than ausbau languages.
From the Wikipedia article I condense the following: A) The abstand- vs. ausbau- vs. dachsprache exists to take account of sociological factors, B) abstand language = linguistically different languages; dachsprache = a group of non-mutually-intelligible related varieties (linguistically therefore distinct languages) that are sociologically a unity (e.g. German, Arabic); ausbau = sociologically different languages that are mutually intelligible (and therefore linguistically the same language, e.g. Serbo-Croatian, Hindustani). Then it doesn't really make sense to require that ausbau languages have different dialectal bases, because that defeats the purpose of this classification. Also note the "having been shaped or reshaped, molded or remolded — as the case may be — in order to become a standardized tool of literary expression". This is certainly true of the Serbo-Croatian standard languages, and they have a number of differences because of it. --JorisvS (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three ranges of linguistic distance: Abstand language, Ausbau language, pluricentric language. All three are sociolinguistic terms (invented by Heinz Kloss). They are used as follows:
„It seems useful to distinguish three ranges of linguistic distance: small (typical for standard varieties of the same pluricentric language, e.g. between Austrian Standard German and German Standard German), medium (the minimal linguistic distance between the standard varieties of two different languages (Ausbau languages), e.g. between Standard Letzeburgish and German Standard German), and great (= Abstand; sufficient for any two varieties to belong to two different languages, Abstand languages).“
(Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 2. Berlin/New York 2005., p. 1538, Ulrich Ammon)
Hindustani is also a pluricentric language, see:
Dua, Hans Raj (1992). "Hindi-Urdu as a pluricentric language". In Clyne, Michael G. Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Contributions to the sociology of language 62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 381–400.
The Wikipedia article should include as C) pluricentric language.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is only a short note in the Interrelation of the abstand and ausbau statuses section. Apparently I just don't get the point of ausbau vs. pluricentric. Maybe you can clarify that? --JorisvS (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An ausbau language is a standardized language. There needn't be more than one standard, as in a pluricentric language. Serbian and Croatian are separate ausbau languages, though they are a single abstand language. That language, SC, is pluricentric. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ausbau vs. pluricentric:
1) different dialects standardised vs. the same dialect standardised ;
2) mutually intelligible with difficulty vs. with ease: „Abstand rules out mutual intelligibility (medium linguistic distance [=Ausbau] allows for it with difficulty, small linguistic distance [=pluricentric] with ease).“ (Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 2. Berlin/New York 2005., p. 1538, Ulrich Ammon);
3) the percentage of identical units measured in texts is below 50% vs. above 50% (e.g. Ammon 1995:6-11 [1] and Daniel Bunčić 2008:91-95 [2] have got 16%, 6% i 5% for Ausbau languages vs. above 75% for variants of a pluricentric language).
Ausbau means different, separate languages, whereas variants of a pluricentric language are not different, separate languages (e.g. American English, British English ; Austrian German, German German ; Croatian Serbo-Croatian, Serbian Serbo-Croatian).--Darigon Jr. (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if Czech and Slovak were not standardized and used for literary purposes (and hence not be ausbau), which term would be applicable? --JorisvS (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The variants of a pluricentric language are also standardised but they are not Ausbau languages because of 1), 2) and 3) above. In sociolinguistic studies using the terms Ausbau/Abstand/pluricentric, Czech and Slovak are labeled as Ausbau languages. What is not standardised is usually dialect or sociolect. --Darigon Jr. (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But specifically Czech&Slovak for a moment, would they be considered "dialects" in this framework if they did not have standard forms? --JorisvS (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know since I'm not familiar with Czech&Slovak. Maybe this paper helps to clarify the relationship between Slavic languages.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This may also help: “There is seldom much difficulty in deciding whether the speech of two groups constitutes dialects of one language or two distinct languages, when ‘language is defined in terms of mutual intelligibility.” (R. Dixon 1997, The rise and fall of languages, Cambridge, p. 62) “They [two groups] either understand very little (maybe 10%) - here we have different languages - or almost everything (70% or more) - we are here dealing with dialects of one language. Only rather seldom does one encounter a case of around 50% intelligibility” (Dixon 1997, p. 8)--Darigon Jr. (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that does not address my question. --JorisvS (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heinz Kloss introduced the model pluricentric/Ausbau/Abstand for dealing with standardized forms. It can be seen as an attempt to classify standard languages. Therefore the question "would Czech&Slovak be considered dialects in this framework if they did not have standard forms" actually doesn't address this framework. And if you take a step further and look for an answer beyond this framework, you have to consider mutual intelligibility (and other verifiable indicators) to decide whether hypothetically non-standard Czech&Slovak would be dialects or different languages.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what, then, would be the distinction between ausbau and abstand languages? --JorisvS (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ausbau vs. Abstand: mutually intelligible with difficulty vs. not mutually intelligible ; medium linguistic distance vs. great linguistic distance.
The relationship between Slovenish and German is Abstand languages, whereas the relationship between Slovenish and Serbo-Croatian can be described as Ausbau languages. The relationship between Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian is also Ausbau languages, and the relationship between Macedonian and Bulgarian is Ausbau languages. In a dialect continuum, it is often the case that two neighboring standard languages are Ausbau with each other.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why the term "ausbau"? --JorisvS (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's the standardisation that made them different languages. Before the standardization, you see only a dialect continuum. In contrast, Abstand languages are different languages regardless of standardization (before and after it); variants of a pluricentric language are not different languages though standardised.--Darigon Jr. (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would see a dialect continuum with mutually unintelligible (or at least mutual intelligibility too low for decent communication) ends and maybe midpoints. Some may feel uncomfortable calling that multiple languages, maybe because for outsiders these would look rather similar, despite the differences that impede communication, and because it's hard to draw a boundary, and hence would only call them different languages if they are standardized. I cannot agree with that rationale, though. --JorisvS (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you on the crucial role of mutual intelligibility: if tests show mutual intelligibility below 70%, we are dealing with different languages in each case (before / after standardisation).--Darigon Jr. (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Croatian words"

The section was completely unreferenced. "Paprika" is not a Croatian word. It cannot be, as the -ka is the Hungarian diminutive. The Croatian word is papar, which is not used in English.

When I went to verify the others, I found that sources listed them as Serbo-Croatian, not specifically as Croatian. I verified that all of these words are indeed found in Standard Serbian as well as in Croatian. I therefore added some refs and moved the list to Serbo-Croatian language. I'm mentioning this here because it looks like we've gotten into an edit war over this silliness. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings kwami}If such list of words can exist on the page of Serbian language it certainly can be on Croatian too. I agree that paprika is Hungarian word, but it originated from Croatian word papar (and it is on Serbian language page too). Polje, with that specific meaning is Croatian word, because in other languages from that group polje means only agricultural field, and in Croatian it has the meaning I have added.

And zrakomlat is not part of standard Croatian language it is used in slang, like the word chopper in American English (helicopter).

Neo-Croatian coinages like zrakomlat and putovnica haven't spread to English so I see agree there is no reason to keep that section at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_language&oldid=608985903"