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 50.111.22.143 (talk) at 23:38, 5 February 2019 (→‎there is no "controversy" - SerboCroatian is universally accepted by linguists!). 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]

Propaganda alert

On Croatia#Languages and Demographics of Croatia#Languages, Croatian and Serbian are described as if they were separate languages like Czech and Slovak, rather than standard varieties of the same language. Also, they use the name "Serbo-Croatian" (and link to the article Serbo-Croatian) not in the same way that the WP uses the term. Also, it gets even more ridiculous when they describe Chakavian and Kajkavian as "dialects of Croatian". Anyone care to remove the propaganda and rewrite those sections? I'm afraid I wouldn't do a great job at it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at accurate wording. Shall we count how long it takes a "patriot" to revert it? --Taivo (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SO Croatian and Serbian are one language and Checz and Slovak are not? In which alternate universe?
Also why is Torlakian always forgtten when talking about South Slavic dialects? It` Serbian POV which says Sthokavian is Serbian, Kajkavian Slovene and Chakavian Croatian. But they intentionally don`t mention Torlakian dialect which is basically the same as Bulgarian and Macedonian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.235.195 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, my friend from Zagreb - Czech and Slovak are different enough linguistically that they are separate languages, scientifically. Learn to deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.26.177 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you to say that? Of course if you are Czech or Slovak you'll say that they are separate languages. Maybe you are Dutch or English quasi-linguist who thinks he knows everything about Serbian or Croatian language. Let me clarify you, few days ago I downloaded subtitles on Serbian, I didn't understand every third word, and scientifically Serbian and Croatian are more different than, for example, German and Dutch. If you're not Serbian or Croatian you don't have right to tell they are the same language because you didn't born as a native speaker of Serbian or Croatian, so you just can't see or hear the difference. Learn to deal with it. --Sheldonium (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to all who think Sebian and Croatian are the same language. And if you're Serbian (which is not hard to guess looking your edits) you obviously know that Croatian was never Serbian and it never will be, so you try to serbinize it as much as you can. --Sheldonium (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comments of a nationalist native speaker don't count. All that counts are professional appraisals by reliable linguists. Linguists universally link Croatian and Serbian as a single language which has usually been called "Serbo-Croatian". It's not based on political stances but on linguistic science. Czech and Slovak are more dissimilar. Reliable sources have been used here and at Serbo-Croatian detailing this. Sorry it doesn't match your nationalist predilections. --Taivo (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another quasi-linguist. All you non-Croats and non-Serbs have to know that there is no linguist that can talk about language he is not fluent in. I can't really say is Dutch a German dialect or is Ukrainian a Russian dialect, but I know my own language. What do I get if I say that I speak Croatian and not Serbo-Croatian, except the truth?
Short history about that two languages:
Long before Dutch people, there were two different languages: Serbian and Croatian. Serbian language was undeveloped (same as today) because it has no grammar, no dictionaries and no real linguists. Croatian on the other hand was developed, with the Serbian, it is the only language which you can read as you write (originally German idea). And now is 19th century, the idea that Serbs and Croats are one people (which is historically and linguistically incorrect) was born. The only way to connect these two peoples were to make one, universal language (which actually is more similar to modern Croatian than Serbian) and there it is: Serbo-Croatian! And there are really no differences between Serbian and Croatian, it all sounds the same to a linguist, quasi-linguist or to an ordinary man which is not the native speaker of these two languages. I hope you learned something, and if you're interested in languages, please, you have Klingon. --Sheldonium (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I learned that you don't know anything about the science of linguistics or the history of languages. A chemist doesn't have to be a carbon atom to understand organic chemistry. Good try at your unscientific nationalist propaganda, though. I don't expect anything less in the Balkans from people who think they are linguists because they speak a language and believe something with all their heart. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, I didn't expect anything less from self-proclaimed "experts" or "scientists" from the Balkan United States who always throw Croats into the "Balkans". Nice try, though. The dude getting all pissy about the "Serbo-Croatian" fantasy article does provide for an entertaining threak, I'll give you that. But he can't be used as an excuse to spew your racist bullshit, kay? You might have carved out a hole under your Wikipedia rock here, but thankfully, in the real world that shit don't matter, babe. --RealLinguist
UnRealLinguist who didn't register or even sign his IP address - your comment is utter rubbish. Clearly, you are neither a linguist from an accredited school, or have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. 50.111.55.122 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't know anything about linguistics and especially both Serbian and Croatian language. And the comparison with the chemistry is stupid. People know their own language the best, and you don't know anything about Croatian. So, stop editing articles about something you don't understand or I'll start to edit articles about Ukrainian or other languages (which I never did).
Nationalist propaganda? See what Dutch people are saying about themselves. Or even better, compare Serbian Wikipedia and Croatian Wikipedia and you'll see what's propaganda. And you should be grateful to Croats because without them you would be a Muslim speaking Turkish and probably the lifespan in Europe wouldn't be higher than 40 years. --Sheldonium (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good try at your unscientific nationalist propaganda, though. I don't expect anything less in the Balkans from people who think they are linguists because they speak a language and believe something with all their heart.
To me that is an insult. And here are some materials to educate yourself, and especially this. Use Google Translator if you need it, but you're a linguist so you'll probably understand everything. --Sheldonium (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscientific rants by an amateur nationalist have no place on the TP's - please restrain yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.202.6 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldonium, nobody cares about your oversensitivity and unscientific rants that, for the most part, are not backed up by any reliable sources. It's just "yadda yadda yadda, believe me because I say so, you're not a real linguist, offtopic, offtopic, stop being racist, you're insulting me." You can't possibly think that it could be taken seriously. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm neither a linguist, a native speaker of English nor a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian, I can just check sources that are available in English to see that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are indeed one language (see above, the article itself and the article Serbo-Croatian). The evidence is overwhelming. Also, we shouldn't forget about the fact that politicians in Croatia for years have been doing what they can to artificially further distance Croatian from other standards of Serbo-Croatian, so that you could even hear Croats saying that they themselves don't know how to speak/write their language in a correct manner anymore, because suddenly something has become a Serbism (Serbicism?)! If I'm understanding the situation correctly, that is nothing short of criminal activity. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaj's Latin alphabet vs Latin alphabet

The sentence "Croatian is written in Gaj's Latin alphabet" seems odd. "Gaj's Latin alphabet" sounds like some sort of neologism (newly-coined word), based on the Croatian word "gajica", which is an infrequently used word used to describe the Croatian version of the Latin alphabet. Most frequest word by far, used in Croatia is "latinica". When translated into English, "latinica" is "Latin alphabet". It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to either drop the reference to the alphabet or to say that "Croatian is written using the Latin alphabet" for the following reasons:

(1) Other languages on Wikipedia do not specify the script when the language is written using the Latin script eg. Portuguese or French.

(2) When the script is specified, it usually refers to the Latin script (see Slovak language) or to the language specific version of the Latin alphabet - by this I mean the Maltese language refers to the Maltese alphabet and the Slovene language refers to the Slovene alphabet.

(3) Ljudevit Gaj himself did not use the current Croatian alphabet. For example, he did not use the letter đ, using instead dj or gj, depending on the etymology of the word. He used ě in places where "je" or "ije" is nowadays used. He used èr in place of the "syllabic r", and he used both tj and ć, depending on the etymology of the word, in places where only ć is used now.

(4) If the intention is to specify and emphasize that the Croatian is now written in the Latin alphabet, but was written in other alphabets in the past, then that should be clarified. That is, the setence should be changed to "Croatian is now solely written in the Latin alphabet, but in the past it was written in Glagolitic, Croatian Cyrillic and Arebica alphabets."

(5) Although the "schoolbook" Croatian alphabet consists of 30 letters: a, b, c, č, ć, d, dž, đ, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, lj, m, n, nj, o, p, r, s, š, t, u, v, z, ž; in practice, Croatian also uses q, w, x, and y as well. For example, "newyorški hotel" = "a New York hotel". Reference: Babić - Finka - Moguš, "Hrvatski pravopis" [Croatian orthography], 1994.

Croatian

Stop the lies my friend. There is no Serbo-Croat language. Ivanwisdom (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists clearly link Serbian, Bosnian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, Montenegrin, and Croatian into a clearly identifiable and well-described single language. The most common label for what is basically "non-Slovenian West South Slavic" is "Serbo-Croatian". This is a single pluricentric language, mutually intelligible throughout its extent despite what the nationalists like to shout. --Taivo (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So-called Serbo-Crotian "language" was an artificial project, that failed miserably, as was recognized by experts of the International Organization for Standardization who decided to reclassify that term from co-called "language" to macrolanguage, a totally different linguistic category, but that fact is being suppressed in relevant articles by advocates of fictional "Serbo-Croatian language". There is a huge distinction between standard Croatian language, that has three variants (Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian), and standard Serbian language, that has no linguistic connections with Čakavian and Kajkavian variants of Croatian language. As an ethnic Serb, I should emphasize here that no Serbs have ever spoken Čakavian or Kajkavian. Serbian and Croatian languages share some Štokavian subvariants, and that is the only common thing between them. Therefore, the very term "Serbo-Croatian" has no real substance, and belongs to linguistic history, since it seems that term "Serbo-Croatian" will not be kept for long even as a designation for current ISO macrolanguage category, that will probably be renamed into "BCMS" or something like that. Sorabino (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is not based on the linguistic facts, but on the nationalist agenda of Croatia. And it doesn't matter what might happen in the future to the ISO 639-3 classification. The reality is that right now and for the past decades, the most common label used for the non-Slovenian West South Slavic language is "Serbo-Croatian". That's the simple linguistic reality among scholars. Your comment that Kajkavian and Chakavian are dialects of Croatian is laughable and simply exposes your nationalist prejudice. Kajkavian and Chakavian, along with Shtokavian, are the three dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are dialects of Shtokavian. So there is no sense in which Kajkavian and Chakavian are dialects of Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, man you have some serious problems if you really think that I, as an ethnic Serb from Serbia, am promoting Croatian "nationalist agenda" :) Must admit, you made me laugh, since this is the first time in the history of Wikipedia (I guess) that a Serb is accused of being pro-Croatian :) But, seriously, why did you remove referenced content that was pointing to official ISO classification? It seems that you have hard time accepting reality: your "precious" Serbo-Crotian is no longer considered a "language" by ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 standards, since it is reclassified as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage in ISO 639-3 standard. Your removal of referenced contend that was pointing to those facts is very strange. Do you really think that it is proper to suppress information on ISO standards? Those standards are produced by an international team of linguistic experts, working for ISO. It is your right not to agree with them, but do not push your personal views on others. And also, regarding your claims that Čakavian and Kajkavian do not belong to Croatian language, I must admit that I am stunned, since 99% of Čakavian and Kajkavian speakers are ethnic Croats, and that is a basic fact. Sorabino (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rua: Why did you remove information on ISO classification from the article? History of this article shows that you are a staunch advocate for Serbo-Croatian as a "language". During recent years, your main "contribution" to this article was represented by several deletions of content that is not in line with your personal point of view. And now, you are removing basic information on ISO classification, without any explanation. That is not useful editing. You might not like the fact that Serbo-Croatian is no longer classified as "language" by ISO, but that does not give you the right to suppress that information. What is the problem with acknowledging the fact that Serbo-Croatian has been reclassified by ISO as linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage? I do not see any problem there, so please, explain your actions. Sorabino (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the nature of the term "Serbo-Croatian". It is a cover term for the single language that comprises the non-Sloveanian West South Slavic dialect chain. It is a pluricentric language with three/four varieties of the Shtokavian dialect as separate national standards. I don't care whether you're Serbian or Croatian or Tajik, your attempts to deny the linguistic reality and push an unscholarly political agenda is unwelcome. And our linguistic consensus is based on far more than just ISO 639-3. That is but one data point, not nearly the whole picture. And "Serbo-Croatian" in Wikipedia's usage isn't the standard language that was labelled as such during the Yugoslavia era. It is a label that encompasses all the varieties under one heading. It is the only widely-accepted label for this dialect cluster. --Taivo (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pushing any agenda here, you are the one who is denying facts, and presenting your POV as "consensus". There is no justification for your removal of data on official ISO classification from this article. You are trying to suppress relevant and referenced content, with no explanation. Why are you doing that? It is so obviously wrong. I have to ask you again, why do you think that this article should not contain information on ISO classification of this language? Sorabino (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem. 1) You have misunderstood the nature of "macrolanguage" to think that it is some sort of uniform linguistic term. It is unique to ISO 639-3. 2) You are presenting these dialects (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian) as separate languages just because that is the political agenda of these countries and because they have separate ISO numbers. These are one language with three mutually intelligible subdialects of Shtokavian that have three national standards. This is one language and linguists outside the Balkans are uniformly in agreement with that. 3) The most common label used in linguistic literature for the language that comprises these dialects of Shtokavian, Chakavian, and (perhaps) Kajkavian is "Serbo-Croatian". 4) An entire paragraph on ISO 639-3 using it to prove that there is "no such thing as 'Serbo-Croatian'" simply fails to present a consensus of linguistic facts and relies on a misinterpretation and overemphasis on the ISO standard. ISO is not the law in linguistics, it is a system of library classification so that multiple names can be collapsed into a single code for cataloging purposes. It's not a linguistic inventory. --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, on all accounts. Simply speaking, you are pushing your POV not only by promoting it, but also by suppressing other views and relevant data. The very fact that you are deleting data on ISO classification and terminology shows that you are trying to monopolize content by reducing it to your POV. What gives you the right to deprive readers of information on official ISO classification and terminology regarding Croatian language and its belonging to a particular linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage? You are removing that content simply on the "I don't like it" grounds, and that is not useful editing. Sorabino (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wrong. I'm a professional linguist and have worked on ISO 639-3 and I do, indeed, know what I'm talking about. And the linguistic sources that my comments are based on are equally clear. But the problem with your addition is that you were putting too much weight on ISO 639-3 to make your unscholarly argument. I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but you wrote an entire paragraph and made your entire false argument hinge on that one source. That's a clear case of WP:UNDUE. --Taivo (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% wrong, and your actions speak more than your excuses. If you are a professional linguist, then you should be the first one to respect plurality of linguistic opinions on such a complex problem as classification of Serbo-Croatian. Instead of that, you are suppressing relevant data and censoring views that are different from your own. There can be no justification for your actions here. And there is no use anymore in hiding behind the title of a professional linguist. Your refusal to acknowledge and respect plurality of opinions speaks volumes. Sorabino (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Plurality of opinions" makes me laugh. You are the one who is rejecting linguistic scholarship in order to give WP:UNDUE weight to a single source that linguists do not use as a "universal listing" of separate languages. Add a brief statement that ISO 639-3 uses the term "macrolanguage" to group Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian under the the label Serbo-Croatian and that's fine. But using that to push a political agenda is inappropriate. There is one other thing here that Sorabino is ignoring--the persistent effort to call Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects of "Croatian" simply because they occur within the borders of Croatia. They are not dialects of Croatian, they are dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Croatian itself is part of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian along with Serbian and Bosnian. --Taivo (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linguists do not rely on ISO 639-3 as some sort of universal listing of the world's languages. Many of the "languages" that are separated by ISO are clearly dialects and not separate mutually unintelligible languages. While ISO 639-3 separates Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian into three "languages" under the "macrolanguage" Serbo-Croatian, Glottolog, which is much more linguistically sound, lists these three as dialects of the "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" language. Linguasphere also lists these as dialects of a single language "Srpski-Hrvatski" ("Serbo-Croatian"). Klose's "Sprechen der Welt" also lists Serbisch, Kroatisch, etc. as dialects of "Serbokroatisch". I could go on and on. Thus, using ISO's use of the vague term "macrolanguage" to justify calling Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian separate languages (as Sorabino's paragraph is trying to do), is putting WP:UNDUE weight on a single source whose main purpose is not a linguistically unassailable listing of the world's languages by consistent measure, but a system of coding useful in computer-assisted research and bibliographic cataloguing. --Taivo (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow man, it seems that you are sinking deeper and deeper with every comment. I must admit, again, that I am stunned by your POV pushing. For some reason, that has little to do with linguistics, you are fervently denying that Čakavian and Kajkavian are variants of Croatian language. You are in great error on that point. Simple look on census data shows that 99% of Čakavian and Kajkavian speakers are declaring themselves as ethnic Croats, and speakers of Croatian language. Those are simple facts. But you are not interested in facts, obviously. Are you actually claiming that all those Čakavian and Kajkavian speakers, who are declaring their own language as Croatian, are in some kind of error? That would be an incredible claim. Not to mention the fact that only an uninformed person could deny, for example, that Čakavian is variant of Croatian language, since all linguists agree that Čakavian represents the oldest variant of Croatian language, spoken by old Croats since the early medieval period. Trying to separate Čakavian variant from Croatian language is simply ridiculous, and same goes for illusions on Serbo-Croatian as a real "language". Real languages, Croatian and Serbian, existed separately for centuries, throughout middle ages and early modern period, up to the 19th century when some linguists started to construct artificial Serbo-Croatian language, but that project has failed during the 20th century, and now belongs to linguistic history, as a useful reminder on the misuse of linguistics by ethno-political engineering. Sorabino (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Survey data"? LOL. Linguists do not rely on survey data where people claim to be X and not Y for a thousand reasons besides linguistic ones. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the percentage of people claiming to speak Ukrainian as their first language instead of Russian jumped by about 20%. So the only surveys that actually count are not those where people self-identify, but surveys conducted by trained linguists who actual listen to the language spoken by the subjects. I can tell that you know virtually nothing about the science of linguistics, so it's pointless to continue to try to educate you. You're pushing a POV that is non-linguistic, without actual reliable linguistic sources to back it up. Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian are all dialects of a single language no matter what you claim and linguists are fairly solid in that knowledge. --Taivo (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the true origin of your errors is revealed. You are simply projecting your own Ukrainian-Russian issues on totally different situation regarding relations between two South Slavic languages, Croatian and Serbian. It is clear now that you have no real expertise in this field. The very fact that you are advocating separation of Čakavian variant from Croatian language shows that you are in total odds with linguistic science. Sorabino (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly suggest that you actually learn some linguistics before commenting further. You clearly don't know what you're talking about in terms of the science. --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you are pretty much exposed. It is quite clear now that your views on Serbo-Croatian are just a projection of linguistic disputes related to Ukrainian-Russian antagonism. Your opposition to the use of linguistic term macrolanguage also becomes much clearer now, having in mind fierce disputes between Ukrainians and Russians over various linguistic questions. For some reason, you are using Serbo-Croatian to push your own POV on several linguistic issues. Besides that, you really crossed the line by advocating separation of Čakavian variant from Croatian language. On that point you lost all credibility. I see now that in the debate here you are trying to retreat from some of your long standing practices. That might be a positive sign. Sorabino (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that the term "Croatian" is understood differently by Croatian linguists and laymen, and non-ex-Yu scholars. In common Croatian parlance, it apparently refers to any South Slavic lects spoken by ethnic Croats, whether codified or vernacular, rather than to the official Shtokavian-based standard/literary language. Likewise do Serbs and Bosniaks interpret the terms "Serbian" and "Bosnian", respectively. If there are some sources for it, I think it would behoove to make a mention of this popular understanding in the article (perhaps not in the lede, though), at the same time accentuating that it is not the widely accepted scholarly definition.
This somehow reminds me of the common Indonesian understanding of the term "Malay", which is generally said to only include those Malay idioms spoken by ethnic Malays. Going by this logic, Papuan Malay becomes magically a "dialect of Indonesian", although that is linguistically unreasonable (some scholarly sources do call it that, but they also treat the terms "Indonesian" and "Malay" as full synonyms). As a speaker of Indonesian, I can of course confirm that Malay(sian) and Indonesian are unarguably the same language, at least in their codified forms, and their relationship quite resembles the Serbo-Croatian case (and yet there's nobody trying to push their nationalist POV on the Indonesian language page, whether here or on id.wiki!).
To be honest, I would be fine with dropping the appellation "Serbo-Croatian" altogether or making it synonymous with "Shtokavian". The label really has caused too much controversy, it is clearly not viewed as neutral, and its current definition is not that much linguistically sound since the inclusion of Kajkavian and Chakavian seems to be based on largely arbitrary grounds. The lects have relatively low mutual intelligibility, and had Croatia based their standard on, say, Chakavian, then it would probably be seen as a separate language now, just like Czech/Slovak or Danish/Norwegian are (Ausbau criteria).
IMO it would not hurt to redefine Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian as three separate languages, and then treat Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin as different standard varieties (standard dialects, literary standards) of Shtokavian. That would be much more tenable scientifically than the current nationalist viewpoint, and would at the same time head off the indignation of some Balkanians. But we would need some reliable linguistic sources for that. Nama.Asal (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a bad suggestion in principle, but the majority of linguistic sources still use the term "Serbo-Croatian". That limits us in what we can do. What I would appreciate, though, is if the dialect continuums could be shown in terms of features and isoglosses, in the same way as on West Germanic languages#Comparison of phonological and morphological features. That way, readers can make a more informed judgement on the relatedness and grouping. Rua (mew) 22:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, understand that Čakavian is the oldest variant of Croatian language, and therefore it should not be separated from the Croatian linguistic corpus. In every Čakavian text, since the middle ages up to modern times, the language of Čakavian speakers is by themselves called Croatian (archaic autonym: horvatski). Term "čakavski" (eng. Čakavian) was coined artificially, in the 19th century, by linguists, as a dialectological tool, with no intention to deny that Čakavian is a variant of Croatian language. Since Čakavian speakers have always called their language Croatian, it would be absurd to pretend that it is not Croatian. That would go against the entire corpus of linguistic monuments, and consequently against linguistic science itself. It should be noted here that some segments of the article Chakavian are totally misleading. For example, term "Serbo-Croatian" is used in the history section, and that is quite ridiculous, since that artificial term has nothing to do with medieval and early modern linguistic reality. And above that, article does not mention at all that Čakavian speakers have always been referring to their language as Croatian (autonym: horvatski). That crucial fact has been suppressed, as a part of a wider attempt to sustain the artificial "Serbo-Croatian" label by the use of content manipulation, and censoring of all facts that prove the non-existence of co-called Serbo-Croatian "language". And I should also emphasize here, that those things have nothing to do with us Serbs. We do not like Croats very much, but we all acknowledge the fact that Čakavian is a variant of Croatian language, since earliest times up to the present day. Sorabino (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Chakavian is somehow "Old Croatian" is without basis in the linguistic literature and I have given examples (and can cite dozens more from every continent) of how unreliable speaker self-identification is. Only scientific linguistic surveys and historical/comparative linguistic analysis and reconstruction can determine linguistic affiliation. As such, historical linguists are uniform in their linkage of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Chakavian (older surveys also include Kajkavian), in a single language which has most commonly been labelled "Serbo-Croatian". This label is not the same as the standard language in use during the Yugoslavia era, it is a language label for a group of mutually intelligible dialects. "Serbo-Croatian" in a linguistic sense is precisely the same as "English" in a linguistic sense is the general language name for a range of mutually intelligible dialects and varying standard forms. Some sources are now using "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" (in some order) as a label for this language to replace "Serbo-Croatian". I don't find that to be a problem although the majority of linguistic reliable sources still use "Serbo-Croatian". There is no "suppression of facts" except in the imagination of nationalistic editors. Wikipedia simply relies on the preponderance of scientific linguistic reliable sources, not speaker declarations, self-identification, nationalistic declarations, or hearsay. --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting statements that are collapsing like a house of cards, upon a basic Google Search? Your wrote above: "The claim that Chakavian is somehow "Old Croatian" is without basis in the linguistic literature". That statement of yours is 100% wrong, since that particular question is very present and often debated in scholarly literature. Go to the Google Search engines, use Google Gooks, or Google Scholar, and combine searches for "Old Croatian" with terms "Chakavian" (or "Čakavian"). You will get many hits, pointing to literature on relation between "Old Croatian" and "Čakavian", and that would be just the literature in English language, not to mention literature in other languages - that can be easily searched to. I have to admit that I am no longer surprised by your peculiar editing, considering the amount of damage that was done in all articles related to Serbo-Croatian linguistic cluster. Suppression of facts and censorship of views has to stop. Sorabino (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you addressed just one-half of one sentence of my comment, then I'll assume that you have no argument against the remainder of my point, which isn't based on "Google searches", but upon actual linguistic research and an actual knowledge of the scientific literature in the field. The article follows the broad consensus of fact described by linguists in the majority of reliable sources concerning Serbo-Croatan (aka, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian), for example, Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000, vol. 2, pg. 445), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001, pg. 444), etc. Whether Chakavian is a variety of Croatian (which itself is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian) or a separate dialect of Serbo-Croatian outside Croatian is a mixed issue among linguists, but that Serbo-Croatian is the language that unites the dialects of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian is without serious challenge in the linguistic community (outside the nationalist circles of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, that is). --Taivo (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, get serious. You have been proven wrong here on all accounts. There is no use in inventing so-called "consensus" on your POV, since such consensus does no exist. On the contrary, it is a common knowledge that term "Serbo-Craotian" has several different meanings, and it is not used in modern linguistics as a designation for an individual language. It is commonly used just as one of several technical designations for a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Croatian, Bosniac, Montenegrin and Serbian. That is the only linguistic consensus existing in regard to the term "Serbo-Craotian", and it is properly reflected in official ISO classification, that recognizes term "Serbo-Croatian" only as designation for a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage. Indiviadual Serbo-Craotian "language" does not exist, and there are no linguistic scholars who would advocate such a view. Sorabino (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You simply don't know what you're talking about. 1) You overplay the ISO labels. Actual linguists, not the armchair novices like yourself, do not put very much weight on ISO labels other than to use them as cataloguing nomenclature. We all know that the ISO is more subject to the whims of politics (such as that which you practice) than it is to rigorous linguistic methodology. For example, the ISO system lists Lushootseed, Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish as separate languages with individual codes. But it is well-known that "Lushootseed" is the name of the language (see Bates et al. 1994, Mithun 1999, etc.) and Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish are dialects of that language. It is exactly parallel to the Serbo-Croatian [hbs], Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin situation--a language with dialects, and each dialect has a separate ISO designation. Yet Lushootseed is listed as a "language", not a "macrolanguage" for political reasons, not linguistic ones. The same is true of the Serbo-Croatian dialect cluster--the four dialects are listed as separate languages for political reasons, not linguistic ones. Linguists therefore do not use the ISO listing as a reliable linguistic classification or as a scientifically rigorous listing of the world's well-defined languages. 2) Of course you ignore all the references that I have provided here and elsewhere that show that actual linguists treat Serbo-Croatian (or Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian or Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian or whatever you want to call it) as a single language with Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin treated as dialects of that language: Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000, vol. 2, pg. 445), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001, pg. 444), etc. It is not "common knowledge" as you so blithely assert based on a single, solitary source that isn't considered a very good source among actual linguists (which you are clearly not). --Taivo (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuing to manipulate this discussion? Your frequently repeated claims on so-called "consensus" have been called out on several occasions during past years. Not to mention the "validity" of your interpretation of various sources. None of sources mentioned above state that "Serbo-Croatian" is an individual language. All modern linguists are using "Serbo-Croatian" label, depending on their views, as a designation for a particular pluricentric language, or as a technical term for a particular linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisted of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. That is the factual reality, and it should be reflected in all relevant articles, for the benefit of readers. Sorabino (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading the sources, you're just making stuff up. I'm not manipulating anything, but simply presenting the linguistic evidence. Every single one of the sources that I have listed present Serbo-Croatian as a single language. If you think otherwise then you are not actually reading the source. For example, Glottolog shows languages in bold type and dialects in italics. Linguasphere shows languages in bold type separated by a solid line and dialects within the box surrounded by the line representing the language. If you read Comrie, Corbett 2002 the text clearly says that Serbo-Croatian is the language and Serbian et al. are standard dialects in the pluricentric language. Sprachen der Welt clearly marks "dial." in the entry under Serbo-Kroatisch. The only way that you can say that these reliable and well-respected sources don't say that Serbo-Croatian is a single language is if you haven't read them or don't understand the nomenclature or marking conventions (in other word, you haven't read them). Your "facts" are nothing more than your political POV based solely upon your single-minded reliance on the linguistically non-rigorous ISO 639-3. Wikipedia is not required to post fringe and scientifically political views--that's what your POV is. --Taivo (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to misinterpret the sources. As I stated above, none of those sources state that "Serbo-Croatian" is an individual language. But you are constantly replacing that linguistic term with colloquial term single language. Please, educate yourself on distinction between basic terms, like individual language, and pluricentric language. As I stated above, modern linguists are using term "Serbo-Croatian" either as a designation for a particular pluricentric language, or as a technical term for a particular linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisted of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Those are common facts. Sorabino (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But how could Serbo-Croatian be an individual language, i.e. a monocentric language, assuming that's what you meant? Modern Serbo-Croatian has 3-4 well-defined standard varieties, so it is by all means pluricentric, just like the article states, and reliable sources can corroborate this information. Or are you trying to push the staunch nationalist POV, where Serbo-Croatian is just an artificial construct that has nothing to do with the modern-day carbon-copy "languages", and restrict the term to the defunct Yugoslav standard? And does the term "macrolanguage" actually have any traction in linguistic sources, aside from Ethnologue? Does it have a well-defined scientific meaning? Nama.Asal (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you seem to understand what a language is. A language is a variety or group of varieties that are mutually intelligible speech forms and not mutually intelligible with other forms. Pluricentric has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of "language". Pluricentric means that more than one of those mutually intelligible varieties/dialects is a national standard. Thus English is one language even though there are multiple national standards. It is one language because it is mutually intelligible across its range. American English and Australian English and British English are not separate languages just because they are different national standards. The very same is true of Serbo-Croatian. Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are mutually intelligible national standards of a single pluricentric language. The term "monocentric" only means that there is but one form of the language that is a national standard, it doesn't define the difference between one language and multiple languages. The two -centric terms have nothing to do with defining "language", they only have to do with counting national standards within a single language. The term "macrolanguage" really has no traction within linguistics outside Ethnologue/ISO 639-3 (they are basically the same thing, run by the same organization, the Summer Institute of Linguistics). And Sorabino, using the term "carbon copy languages" is ridiculous. "Carbon-copy", meaning mutually intelligible, is just another way of saying different varieties of one language, not different languages. Linguists differentiate "dialect" from "language" by the characteristic of "mutual intelligibility". It's not a perfect measure, but it's the best we have. If two speech varieties are mutually intelligible to a high degree, then they are dialects of the same language, whether or not they are differing national standards. That's what makes a "pluricentric language"--a single language with multiple national standards. English as a language with multiple dialects and multiple national standards is no different than Serbo-Croatian, one language with multiple dialects and multiple national standards. Without the political animosity and ethnic hatred that characterizess the Serbo-Croatian national standards and dialects, English easily carries a single label. Your misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "pluricentric" lies at the heart of your attempts to deny linguistic reality. Even sources that do call the three national standards "languages" state categorically that the use of the label "language" for Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian is not a linguistic decision, but a political and ethnic one (see, for example, Alexander 2006). So if the decision is a political and ethnic one, then an article like Wikipedia's, which is based on linguistic science and not political rivalry or ethnic hatred, must follow the science and not the emotions of Balkan patriots. The science is clear--there is one pluricentric language, usually called Serbo-Croatian, that has multiple mutually intelligible national standards, much like English. --Taivo (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what the terms "monocentric" and "pluricentric" mean. I was referring to Sorabino's understanding of the term "individual language", which was apparently supposed to mean "monocentric language" or something, seeing how he insisted on putting it in opposition to "pluricentric language" and denying that there are any linguists who classify Serbo-Croatian as such. A pluricentric language still counts as a single language in my book, whether it is English, French, Malay or Serbo-Croatian. Nama.Asal (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for making my comment sound like you don't understand. Thank you for the clarification. You and I are clearly in agreement on the meaning of "individual/single language", "monocentric language" (Finnish, Hungarian, Czech), and "pluricentric language" (English, Malay, Serbo-Croatian). --Taivo (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to think that the views of one Croatian linguist ("world class" is not an objective measurement) override the general linguistic consensus. "100% wrong" is still the wording of an person who doesn't know anything about the field. The lead and infobox don't have to reflect all possible points of view, they should reflect the majority view (which they express right now). The subject of whether Serbo-Croatian is a single pluricentric language or a so-called "macrolanguage" is better addressed in the Serbo-Croatian article and not here. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, man! You are totally losing it ... Are you actually clamming now that Wayles Browne is "Croatian" linguist :) He is an American linguist, and a renown expert in South Slavic languages. But, you are not interested in facts ... You actually claimed several times that some kind of "consensus" exists on the subject, but that is so obviously wrong. Therefore, main opposing views should be presented in the lead, like in that Encyclopedia Britannica article. Sorabino (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the fact that Browne's education was partially at the University of Zagreb. But neverthelss, one linguist isn't a consensus. You also ignore the simple facts of the matter. 1) all the dialects of Serbo-Croatian are mutually intelligible and in a purely linguistic sense that means that they belong to one language. 2) In every source (including EB) that mentions the "many languages" option, they make very clear that dividing these dialects into languages is based on non-linguistic factors including politics. The linguistic measurement of language versus dialect is, and always has been, degree of mutual intelligibility. 3) The mutual intelligibility measure between these dialects is unequivocal and makes them uncontestably dialects of one language. This fact has been recognized in all the classifications of the world's languages that are based on scientific linguistic measures alone. 4) Thus, in Wikipedia articles on languages, in the infobox and in the lead, where editors have uniformly relied on scientific linguist measures and ignored tribal politics, these are dialects of a single language. Further down in the article, where non-linguistic political position can be discussed, then a brief discussion of the non-linguistic issues can be included. But these are not political articles, they are linguistic articles based on linguistically reliable sources. When it comes to language classification, the best linguistically reliable sources include Glottolog and Linguasphere. For Slavic languages alone, there are other sources in print. But you need to wrap your head around the fact that editors in Wikipedia have uniformly favored purely linguistic solutions to issues dealing with languages and have preferred to leave political solutions outside the door. --Taivo (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article from Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that there is no consensus on the Serbo-Croatian controversy, stating that all views on the subject are relevant. Can you provide any reference that would support your claims on so-called "consensus"? There is not a single linguist who would argue that there is any kind of consensus regarding Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, since every scholar knows it to be the most complex and controversial issue. Sorabino (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided multiple references in well-respected linguistic classifications to Serbo-Croatian being treated as a single language, but you simply ignore them. --Taivo (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources claim the existence of any kind of "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy. All of those references are pointing to particular views on the subject, but non of them contains anything that would support your "consensus" claims. Can you mention any linguist that claims the existence of any kind of "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? You stated many times that such "consensus" exists, and used that false claim to police and censor content in several articles, violating Wikipedia editing guidelines on many occasions. Sorabino (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "controversy" - SerboCroatian is universally accepted by linguists!

The warning/advice at the top of this and the standardized-languages of Serbo-Croatian should be more than enough to put a stop to this abuse of the TP. One or two nationalist screwballs calling themselves linguists cannot overturn decades of scholarly opinion - in linguistics and in history. Time for some Administrator action - please - lest we repeat this sort of thing once a year (have a quick look at the archives). 50.111.22.143 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_language&oldid=881966698"