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 Croq (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 21 November 2019 (→‎POV-Pedia). 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]

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.

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]

It's not that simple. See e.g. my comment at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. This issue is still being discussed. GregorB (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among linguists whose livelihood isn't based in Croatia, it's not being discussed at all. The only question here in Wikipedia is how brief we can make the mention of the "Croatian problem" in order to prevent WP:UNDUE emphasis and how to word the text of the article so that linguists from the former Yugoslavia don't confuse Tito's standard with the linguistic label. --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
au contraire, only among users who call themselves taivo or hammerfilmfan, a possible sockpuppet, there is consensus that it should be one language. among linguists, there is a universal acceptance that the matter is not resolved, but that the languages have been developing independently from each other for two decades and counting now. while it's a bit sad to see such articles / sections hijacked by imperial chauvinists, it's still better online than in the real world, where such ego stroking is irrelevant. good luck. 2A04:4540:6401:9C00:5D4B:30A1:9129:6DFA (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, I agree. GregorB (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's always funny when non-linguists think that they know anything whatsoever about language and linguistic issues. And your "two decades" is a complete and total joke. No two identical speech forms on the face of the planet have become separate languages in two decades. Usually two identical speech forms take about 500 years to become separate languages. Get a life. A few words difference isn't a language boundary. If Croatian had changed so much in two decades that it was no longer completely mutually intelligible with Serbian, then you wouldn't be able to understand anything that your grandmother was saying. Your ignorance of linguistic processes is astounding. --Taivo (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if you actually are ignorant enough to think that User:HammerFilmFan is a sockpuppet, then file a report and have him/her investigated. Go ahead. I dare you. --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, you're so sad ... i am a linguist, please slow your roll and your strange ego-fueled crusade. seems to me you need to master the basics of english first before you continue hijacking other language pages: the languages are separate, and not since the past two decades -- their development has become independent again. your misconstructions are mildly entertaining, but still futile -- why do you keep trying to twist what others say? is your range of rhetorical means so limited? i'm sorry if it is. a little help in logical deduction: if two forms are identical, then they're not two, but one and the same form -- since we have serbian and croat here, they're evidently not identical nor the same. please stop beating the dead "mutual intelligibility" horse, it's irrelevant: czech/slovak, macedonian/bulgarian, german/dutch, swedish/norwegian, belarus/russian would all be the same language according to your non-logic -- before you pull out your convenient "different dialect" rabbit out of your hat -- don't: we both know it's one of your last resorts when you have no other way to retort. as to the possible sockpuppet issue, i'll have a look into it. i'm more observant than ignorant, and unlike you not hate-driven. and what's your thing with other people's grandparents? mine didn't speak or understand neither serbian nor croat ... oh well ... as i said, good luck. -2A04:4540:6401:EC00:2082:F379:34F6:8354 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your atrocious improper grammar makes your accusations of another editor having poor English laughable. Btw, it is patently obvious you are NOT a linguist. You seem to be nothing beyond a SPA. 50.111.22.69 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, SerboCroatian is universally accepted by non native speaker linguists. Why this politically motivated POV here? Yugoslavia is dead, fortunately...--Croq (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Serbo-Croatian" has nothing to do with Yugoslavia. It was devised by a German linguist 94 years before the unification of South Slavic states. Where is the political motivation? What is your point? Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is is controversal as SerboCroatian accepted by some not native speaking linguists. For native speakers that is no question.--Croq (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not follow. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine Surtsicna, same as you cant follow this article and want it to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_the_importance_of_European_remembrance_for_the_future_of_Europe and want that to be deleted...--Croq (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV-Pedia

Croatian language is standadized language, who is standardizing the so called "Serbo Croatian"? Kajkavian as a Serbo Croatian Dialect? Kidding??... Guys you are doing here a very bad POV game--Croq (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Pluricentric language. Rua (mew) 13:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever see a procuct, where you can read about the ingredients etc, you can always see e.g. Hr, SR, SLO, BiH, MN.... and in the most languages you can see that it´s not the same. Nowhere you can see "Serbocroatian" as it makes no sense. By the way as we have a dialect continuum also in Germanic languages nobody says german-netherlands or danish-norwegian etc. Makes no sense in the same way. --Croq (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, as long as it makes sense to reliable sources. Rua (mew) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the text of the ingredients label on the washing powder in my bathroom was composed by a team of linguists? Unlike German and Dutch, the vernaculars of Podgorica, Sarajevo, Zagreb, and Belgrade are mutually intelligible. In that regard, Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian are comparable to American English, Australian English, British English, Canadian English, and others. And as explained in Serbo-Croatian#Comparison with other pluricentric languages, the differences between these standard varieties of Serbo-Croatian is less significant than the difference between American English and British English or German Standard German and Austrian German. Surtsicna (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Croq, your laundry detergent is not a reliable source for linguistic information. This is one reliable source where they use the name Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian instead of "Serbo-Croatian". Here is another. "Serbo-Croatian" is the term used by the majority of sources (which have been listed in Wikipedia discussions of this issue at many places in the archives here and at Talk:Serbo-Croatian). You don't seem to be familiar with either linguistics or the linguistic literature on this topic. Both are more reliable than your laundry detergent's product label. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, except Kordic and all the authors are not native speakers. --Croq (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can help you to understand it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYdZrvtJyR4 :-)--Croq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's helping us understand that you are either not interested in or not qualified for a serious discussion on the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Native speakers", if they are not trained linguistic scholars, are generally the worst judges of such things. That's why Wikipedia ignores "native speakers" and uses only reliable sources. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm Taivo, obviously the 95,6 % who speak croatian language don´t know which language they speak, and the 0,18 % know it better...the source [1] It seems like in the past when some "scientists" said nothing can fly that is heavier than air were similar visionists like your "scientific" sources who created SH language... --Croq (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic discrimination

What you are doing here is a kind of Linguistic discrimination. As long as you don´t threat e. g. Dutch language and Afrikaans, Danish, Norvegian and Swedish, Hindi and Urdu "Hindustani language"...etc same way as your linguistic construction of SerboCroat its a political game here. And believe me, the people know very well which language they speak, and don´t need non native speaker instructions. It´s very interesteing that in such situations [[2]] Surtsicna calls my edit nationalism... Think about it... --Croq (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling it discrimination on Wikipedia just because reliable sources unaffiliated with Wikipedia don't see things your way? Rua (mew) 09:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to contain your exasperation in one thread. There is really no need to open more of them. Surtsicna (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you never heard about Ivan Šreter. I think if you would know about things like that, you could understand better why "SH" is not our cup of tea. --Croq (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why it is not your cup of tea. I just do not particularly care. This is not a teahouse. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_language&oldid=927336831"