Talk:Croatian language

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)

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

But your "editing" concept, Courcelles, (I am refering to the joke of wikipedia being an "open encyclopedia") is also plain nonsense. For example, although I am of Spanish origins, I am a linguist, unlike the "editors" who hold the rights to decide what goes. And I see in the first paragraph a plain LIE. Not just an error, but a LIE. And one so sadly typcal for the croatian nationalists who are only capable of displaying stupidity and ignorance when a discussion is being held.

Here's the error: "Two dialects, Chakavian and Kajkavian, are exclusively Croatian..."

One has to be a moron and a croat igonrant motivated by his/her nationalist hatred for the rest of the world, as they are, to say something like that. Kajkavian is NOT exclusively croatian dialect because it is official language of Slovenia.

Fullstop.

Anyone wishing to debate this point is an idiot with no knowledge. In the light of that, the second part of the same erroneous sentence (the second sentence of the first paragraph of this joke of the page, is just as stupid: "and there are a few Croatian speakers of a third, Torlakian."

Croats speaking that dialect, by default live in, nowadays, different countries. Countries situated on the eastern side of the southeastern Europe. Torlakian is specific to the people Croatians hate so passionately and want to be disassociated from by inventing their own language.

So to say that Torlakian is the third "dialect" of non-existent "croatian" language, is only to promote political agendas.

This primitive and continuous "croatian" effort to re-write and re-design linguistic history of the language is what should be really sanctioned here. That is what the real problem is. These primitive ignorants are tryingto tell us, the real scientists, what is the politically correct "truth" so that they can point their finger at their own brothers and say: "We a re not like you!". And then go to church and declare themselves "Love thy neighbour", "christians"...

The good news is that wikipedia is, fortunately, not authority on linguistics and serious scientific studies. Not even a reference. So no matter how much peasants from Dinaric mountains, still chasing sheep (both serbs and croats) work on distorting the facts, the facts will not be distorted.

There's only one language and it cannot be named anything other than serbo-croatian, or croato-serbian, whichever way your political schizofrenia goes. That is the fact. Now all you "linguists" go on about your stupid efforts to invent your "languages", but in the real life, the one that is only based on cold hard scientific facts, your languages do NOT exist.

The sooner you accept that, the better for all, and your primitive and bestial nationalisms may even subside. Hopefully even get cured one day.

And Curcelles, please correct the above error and remove the statement that kajkavian is "exclusive" croatian dialect. Because it is not. It is also used in Slovenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.91.241 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to Courcelles to correct any error. It's up to the regular editors here to reach a consensus. They can then use {{edit protected}} to request that the agreed edit be made to a fully protected page. TFOWR 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Message by 120.22.91.241 is full of anti-Croat ethnic slurs. Kubura (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. There are bigots on all sides. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

Where is the consensus on the content of this article?
Who are the users that agree with the current content and where are their arguments on the talkpages?
How many users disagree with the current content. Who ignored their arguments from the talkpages?
I don't see it on this talkpages, and I don't see it in the history of this article.
I see only imposed personal attitudes, with tagging any opponent as "nationalist".
That's not scientific dialogue. Kubura (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The scientific consensus among linguists is that there is a single language known as Serbo-Croatian (will provide ample references if doubted). The country that constituted the home of that language broke apart and now each of the constituent countries wants to call that language by a different name. The political reality does not change the linguistic reality. --Taivo (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

References demonstrating common English usage of "Serbo-Croatian" for the single language that comprises "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian".

• David Dalby. 1999/2000. Linguasphere Register. Linguasphere Observatory. Pg 445, "53-AAA-g, Srpski + Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian"
• Wayles Brown. 1993. "Serbo-Croat," The Slavonic Languages. Routledge. Pp. 306-387.
• Benjamin W. Fortson IV. 2010. Indo-European Language and Culture, An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell. Pg 431, "Serbian and Croatian are mutually intelligible; but the differences have sometimes been exaggerated for political reasons....Because of their mutual intellgibility, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are usually thought of as constituting one language called Serbo-Croatian."
• Greville Corbett. 1990. "Serbo-Croat," The World's Major Languages. Oxford. Pp. 391-409.
• William Bright, ed. 1992. "Serbo-Croatian," International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford. Volume 3, pp. 422-425.
• Merritt Ruhlen. 1991. A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume 1: Classification. Stanford. Pg. 60, "South Slavic comprises four languages: Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian. Slovene consists of a number of sharply differentiated dialects....The other three are fairly homogeneous."
• M. Paul Lewis, ed. 2009. Ethnologue. 16th edition. Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian have separate articles, but all are subsumed under the macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian. This is reflected as well in ISO 639-3.

That's just the stuff I have laying within arm's reach in my personal library. There are thousands of volumes in English on the Slavic languages, the languages of the Balkans, or Serbo-Croatian specifically that point to this language having the single name in English--"Serbo-Croatian". The very recent political division into "Croatian", "Bosnian", and "Serbian" has no linguistic reality--it is a boundary and ethnicity issue only. Here in Wikipedia, we satisfy the nationalistic aspirations of the Bosnians, the Croats, and the Serbs by having separate articles on each of the three forms of Serbo-Croatian, but to claim that there is no common identity, labelled "Serbo-Croatian", either historically or linguistically, is scientific falsehood. --Taivo (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that was the question. Kubura's seen all of that before, and more. It seems that he simply rejects it. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly no such common identity labelled "Serbo-Croatian", not historically not linguistically! There are no Serbo-Croatian people!!! This innovation comes from the end of the 19th century when a group of the Serbian nationalists wrote "Načertanije" - a kind of "ABC how to conquer the neighbor countries". Their main idea was that all South Slavs are Serbs. Now a group of Serbian extremists supported by a few ignorants work on silent occupation of Croatia by en.wiki! What failed in the 90's by weapon will be continued here by well known Serbian production of mythomania? This is party of those who have secret motivation supported by a bunch of dunces. This is Serbian fascism!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.175 (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Croats of the 19th century who chose to have a common standard with Serbs were fascists. I see you hate your own history.

The Illyrian movement was not Serbian.

If you want a separate Croatian language, start speaking Chakavian or Kajkavian and have that declared the Croatian standard. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. If Serbs want their language to be labbeled Serbo-Croatian it is their problem. They had no litarture for centuries and weren't able to standardize their speeches so they simply stole from Montenegrins and Croats. It is not problem of Croats. We have our language and it is Croatian. Our standardization is based mostly on Shtokavian dialect of Croatian spoken in Dubrovnik. That dialect was defined as "Croatian language" (harvatski jezik) by its writers in the 18th century, not Serbo-Croatian or Serbian. Serbs have no continuation in speaking between their historical dialects and their modern standard. Do you know that Montenegro was occupied by Serbs in the 20th century? Do you know that Serbs tried to do the same with Bosnia and Croatia 20 years ago? Do you understand that you agitate for violent extremist nationalistic politics here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.175 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant has nothing to do with the Illyrian movement. Illyrian movement was positive by idea but impossible in practice, thanks to Serbs. Illyrianists were fighting for Slavic languages in general. Serbs were not able to jump into that train because of impossibility to standardize Serbian speeches. You don't know basic facts. What are you doing here? Are you someone else's puppy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.67.175 (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have neither references nor a linguistic argument. Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians speak the same language. The English label for that language is "Serbo-Croatian". --Taivo (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Pavlović Bernardin, Dubrovnik, 1747.... Pripravljanje za dostojno reći svetu misu... u harvaski jezik pomnjivo i virno privedeno. Pokripljenje umirućih... u harvaski jezik popravi i prištampa... za korist naroda Harvaskoga... - he translated liturgy books from Latin to Croatian (harvaski). Everyone who understand South Slavic languages can see that this is Ikavian Shtokavian - never spoken by Serbs.

In history Croatian language was called by a few synonyms: harvatski, ilirski, slovinski, dalmatinski. Slovinski is Ikavian Croatian form of word Slavic.

• Sforza Ponzoni, 1620, "dalmatinski ali harvacki” - Dalmatian or Croatian

• Stjepan Cosmi (Cosmus), 1688, always translated illyricus as hrvatski (Clero Illyrico — klera harvaskoga; idiomo Illyrico —harvaskoga izgovora).

• Filip Grabovac, Venice, 1749: "Cvit razgovora naroda iliričkoga ali arvackoga" (Illyrian or croatian people). "U Dalmaciji... se i jezik zva, kakonoti ilirički, pak slovinski, potomtoga arvacki i evo i danas. Tri su imena a jedan je isti jezik." (In Dalmatia... language was called Illyrian, or Slavic, or Croatian, so still is. There are 3 names, but the language is one).

• Joakim Stulli, Dubrovnik, 1801, Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum, - word 'illyrice': “Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski”. Once again Illyrian is synonym for Croatian.

Serbian writers were translating from Croatian to Serbian until the 19th century.

• Georgij Mihajlović, 1803. Aždaja sedmoglava: "s dalmatinskoga jezika na slaveno-serbskij prečistjeno" (translated from Dalmatian to Serbo-Slavic). He didn't mention Vid Došen, a writer of the original book. Here Dalmatian is synonym for Croatian.

Opposite example:

• Ivan Ambrozović, 1808: "Proričje i narečenja, sa srbskog jezika na ilirički privedena, nadopunjena i složena" (...translated from Serbian language to Croatian...)

• Vuk Karadžić, Narodne srbske pesnarice, Vienna 1815: "Pesne su ove... jedne štampane po Hercegovačkom dijalektu, a druge po Sremačkom..., da sam sve pečatao Hercegovački (n. p. djevojka, djeca, vidjeti, lećeti, i dr.), onda bi rekli Sremci: pa šta ovaj nama sad nameće Horvatskij jezik". (These songs... some are written in Herzegovinian dialect, the others are in dialect of Srijem... if I wrote all in Herzegovinian (some ijekavian examples), people of Srijem (Serbs who moved to Srijem from Raška at the end of the 17th century) would say: why is he giving us Croatian language). So even V.K. who produced standard Serbian in the 18th century acknowledged here that he used Croatian language for Serbian standard.

There are tens, even hundreds of examples. Serbo-Croatian as you use here is political term from communist Yugoslavia, at moment used by Serbian extremists who have problems since Serbian historical literature is extremely poor one so they want to rename Croatian language into Serbo-Croatian to bridge a huge gap between Torlakian, Serbo-Slavic (the real Serbian speeches) and their standard (admixture of Montenegrin and Croatian)83.131.67.175 (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. None of these sources from the 18th and 19th centuries matter. In English, the single language that comprises Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian is called "Serbo-Croatian" and that is well-documented and verifiable from modern linguistic sources. While this article deals specifically with issues concerning the Croatian variety of that language, it doesn't change the fact that Croatian is part of Serbo-Croatian. In the 17th-19th centuries, the dialect differences between Croatian and Serbian might have been more pronounced, but any differences that existed were significantly leveled during the 20th century by the use of a common Serbo-Croatian literary standard. Today's Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian and Montenegrin) "languages" are virtually identical varieties of a single Serbo-Croatian language. The literary standards of all four are even based on the very same dialect of Serbo-Croatian, not even on different dialects. --Taivo (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No; Croats, Bosnians and Serbs don't speak the same language. They are speaking three similar, but different languages: Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian. And there is no "Serbo-Croatian" language. So called "Serbo-Croatian" is a linguistic Frankenstein's monster.--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, Jack Sparrow 3. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are completely mutually intelligible, they are not different languages in the linguistic sense. Indeed, the literary standards are all derived from the same dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian is a very well-defined language that is described in great detail in thousands of books in English. You will find no references whatsoever in English scientific literature that say that "Serbo-Croatian" doesn't exist. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You will teach me which language I speak? It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. When I watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I perfectly understood when some Soviet soldier said "Za njim" (after him), when he chased Jones. That word has the same meaning in both Croatian and Russian; but does that proves that Croatian and Russian are the same languages? NO!--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't mutual intelligibility: It's not about whether a speaker of one language understands something of another, but whether a speaker of one language (variety) understands everything (give or take the occasional word) of another. The latter is the case for (standard) Croatian, Serbian, etc., but not for e.g. Croatian and Russian. The term "language" refers to those groups of language varieties that are mutually intelligible, and thus applies to Croatian, Serbian, etc. together. Due to lack of a non-compound term, (in English) people habitually refer to this language as Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be the bad guy here. I'm not siding with Balkan nationalists, but I'd like to put forth some important issues:

1. Why are we restricting ourselves to English literature on the matter? I can understand the issue that English language editors can't read Croatian-language resources, but to exclude resources because they're not in English is tantamount to a point of view bias.
2. There is no such thing as complete mutual intelligibility. Even the measure of intelligibility is limiting as varieties can be different without impacting intelligibility (see our article on diaphoneme for some illustrations of this). This means that intervarietal exchanges occur at someplace between complete intelligiblity and complete unintelligibility. There is no way to use mutual unintelligibility (or any structural feature, for that matter) to objectively determine when two varieties are separate languages.
3. Even with the understanding that the classification of these varieties as separate languages comes from the political situation, we can't dismiss the politics. Not only is there such thing as nationalistic linguistics, but isn't it the case that this nationalistic classification is that used by the very people who speak these varieties? It's true that native speakers can't provide insight into certain features of languages (such as phonetics and etymology), but speaker attitudes about linguistic classification have weight. This is particularly salient if South Slavic linguists share this classification.
4. On top of that, because the political (and therefore social) situation is different than it was 20 years ago we have to take the classifications present in older sources with a grain of salt. Remember, the position that these varieties are all part of the same language is just as political as the one that they're different languages. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on those points: (1) We don't need to restrict ourselves to English, but it's a way to filter out most of the propaganda. Many linguists in the Balkans serve state interests, and it would be very difficult for most editors to evaluate who's a RS. (2) True, but the dialectical diversity within Croatian is huge by Slavic standards, whereas standard Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible. If we have a set, {K, Č, Š}, where K and Č are Croatian and where Š is both Croatian and Serbian, then there is no formal way to divide the set into Croatian and Serbian subsets. (Unless you want redefine our terms to say that Serbian is a form of Croatian, or that all of Š is Serbian.) (3) True. That's why we have separate Serbian and Croatian articles. If it weren't for the sociolinguistics, we'd just have a single article and say that our language is shared by 2 or 3 or 4 ethnic groups. That's the approach of the ELL. (4) The ELL was published in 2006, and still takes the view that these are a single language. What we tend to get today is hedging on the name: calling it BCS or some such. Many sources will tell you that such names are inadequate but there is no good name that is politically acceptable. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to merge the articles under the name "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian language" (The language known as Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, or Montenegrin is a South Slavic language spoken in ...). — kwami (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm not a fan of the term propaganda. It's intellectually impoverishing as it allows one to disregard a message prejudicially; in my experience, it often simply means "a political message that I disagree with." That academic or scientific work might further political goals doesn't a priori exclude it from being a reliable source (think of all the work done on AAVE in the 60s and 70s to challenge the deficit model used against African American schoolchildren). This can very easily get into a tautology: "Croatian nationalist propaganda says that these are separate languages." "How do you know it's propaganda?" "Because it says that these are separate languages."
2. Yes, that does complicate the issue, particularly as we refer to {K, Č, Š} as separate dialects. However, {K, Č, Š} isn't the only measure of linguistic difference between these varieties. There is surely more than one isogloss here.
3. Because we have articles on Standard English, Standard French, Standard Mandarin, Standard German, Hindi, Urdu, and Modern Standard Arabic, it seems that the existence of separate articles is itself neutral to the language-dialect question (and, if the Silesian language article is a guide, this neutrality is present even with the word "language" in the article name).
4. I'm aware that there are more contemporary English-language sources that also describe the situation as being one language. However, Taivo's list of 7 sources has 5 that were written or published before the breakup of Yugoslavia. If we're going to stack the deck against "nationalists", it's only fair to consider sources written before the mid-nineties as outdated in regards to this question. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) Try the paper I linked to below.

(2) AFAIK, there is no isogloss separating Croatian from Serbian, apart from divergent technical terminology as in the case of Hindi-Urdu.

(3) Those are language standards, apart from Urdu, which makes it clear that Hindi-Urdu are formally one language.

(4) Yes, which is why I quoted ELL2 from 2006 and other recent descriptions. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

1997 Hawkesworth Colloquial Croatian and Serbian: the complete course for beginners

1998 Benson Standard English-SerboCroatian, SerboCroatian-English Dictionary: A Dictionary of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Standards

1999 [1965] US Dept. of State (FSI) Serbo-Croatian: Basic Course (written 1965, but name maintained)

2003 Heaney Beginner's Serbo-Croatian

2006 U. Wisconsin, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a grammar: with sociolinguistic commentary

2009 Halle & Nevins, "Rule Application in Phonology", in Raimy & Cairns eds. Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology (consistently uses SC)

2009 Fortson Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction

2009 Stroik Locality in minimalist syntax

2009 Haspelmath & Tadmor Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook

2009 Stassen Predicative possession

1. Thank you for referring me to that source. While it's helpful in getting a more nuanced understanding of the situation, it doesn't really speak to "propaganda." If having an ax to grind (or a dog in the race) means one is disqualified from linguistic analysis, then there's a lot more disqualifiable work on other languages as well (I'm having difficulty seeing what national identity-motivated violations of truth or academic integrity Greenburg is talking about, so maybe you can point that part out for me).
2. The source you provided has a map with multiple isoglosses. Just as no single feature marks Southern American Speech as separate from General American, we needn't limit ourselves to one single isogloss to mark a separation of Serbian and Croatian. Dialect continua complicate languae-dialect issues particularly as they expose the occasional arbitrariness of language boundaries.
3. Yes, I may have muddled two separate things in my previous post. On the one hand, there's the language standards and on the other hand there's the body of regional varieties that are made commensurable, Greenburg points out, are made commensurable by diasystemic analyses. My point was that, even seeing the body of regional varieties in these countries as a single polycentric language, we would (or could) still have articles on the language standards. However, that would alter the scope from what they are right now, which includes dialects (and makes the issue a mess of repetition in the related articles)

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But the point is that the isoglosses have nothing to do with the diff tween Croatian and Serbian. Anywhere you go on that map, Serbs speak "Serbian" and Croats speak "Croatian". That's quite different from GA and Southern US English, where Southern immigrants up north are said to speak Southern if they still have the accent, and Southern states like Florida speak GA. No-one with a Boston accent claims to speak Southern just because their ancestor fought for the South, but that's what we have with SC.

Take a look, for example, at the Croatian dialect map: File:Croatian dialects in Cro and BiH 1.PNG. Now, those dialect boundaries are isoglosses, or near enough. But the language boundary is not: the same subdialect occurs in the white areas, which aren't counted simply because they aren't ethnically Croat. That isn't a language in the formal sense.

Reducing these articles to Standard Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian may be the way to go, but that would be a separate discussion. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What is there to stop a linguist from using isoglosses to back up an a priori impression? Isn't that what we've done with Southern American English? American linguists had an impression that people from a certain region speak Southern and used linguistic evidence to back it up, but there's nothing intrinsic about the body of features that were picked that requires us to associate them together; the only thing that makes the selection not arbitrary is the agreement it has with the preexisting conclusions (which come from sociocultural attitudes). I know it seems backwards (or unscientific) to go from your conclusion to the evidence, but that's the politics of language.

If the situation is as you say, then none of the 17 isoglosses Greenburg provides (as well as the 1.5 in the map you've linked to) can be used to mark one as speaking Serbian or Croatian and none of the features are seen as prototypically Serbian or Croatian. This is a testable claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus about the issues pertaining to this article! It's of no importance whether or not who disagrees with the content of the article, because it will be as Kwami wishes it to be (and only that way).
Everybody who objects to this will be labelled as a nationalist (and worse), while the brave fighters for "justice" and "truth™" which diminishes the Croatian language to a mere part of SC will be praised and glorified despite presenting obsolete sources, and despite complete disregard towards the sources written in Croatian and about the Croatian language.
And, in conclusion the most important part is this. Truth™ is being forcibly pushed by those whose personal beliefs taken the better of them, and that with no foundation in the current state of affairs (with regards to the Croatian language).--Sokac121 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ther is no Croatian version of Serbo-Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian language is artificial, funciful language wich existed from 1945 until 1990-is. The Croatian language is very old, and first document writen in Croatian is Bašćanska ploča from 1100 AD. Moreover, Croatian language is the oldest Slavic language, and as such Croatian language can not be just a version of fictional language as Serbo-Croatian.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, Croatian language is older then Serbo-Croatian and Serbian language. Except the fact it is older and richer then those two, Croatian language also have differences with Serbo-Croatian and Serbian. The truth is Serbo-Croatian language is Serbian language with ijekavian dialect, and I don't need to mention that Serbian language with ijekavian dialect was idea of Vuk Karadžić, famous Serbian nationalist and "father" of Serbian language. And who is nationalist now? People who whant to speak language they speak for thousends years, or guys who whant to destroy all what was writen in Croatian by speaking it was Serbo-Croatian (serbian) of Croatian version or just Serbo-Croatian, and sometimes, they go so far by calling Croatian with Serbian name.--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that everyone in the world knows more about Croatian language than Croats. This whole thing about Croatian being part of "Serbo-Croatian" looks like a bad joke.--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Note: I am closing this RfC, because the process has evidently been marred by political advocacy and canvassing, and the style of "debate" being conducted in this section is now not likely to lead to any better-informed consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and "yes" or "no" votes that are not based on policy-conformant arguments and reliable sources can and will be ignored. Apart from a lot of hot air and political posturing, I can see no tangible argument having been brought forward why the abundantly attested term "S.-C.", as used by reliable present-day academic discourse, should not be used here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Should reference to Croatian being part of Serbo-Croatian be removed? --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• No. Thousands of linguistic and pedagogical references in English over the last century have called the single language that comprises Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian "Serbo-Croatian" and it is listed in ISO 639-3 as the macrolanguage label encompassing all three. A brief list of references is here. Indeed, the literary varieties of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are all even derived from the same dialect of Serbo-Croatian rather than from different dialects. English-speaking readers will be looking for references to "Serbo-Croatian" and not to "Croatian", "Serbian", or "Bosnian". In fact, as the lead is usually rewritten by the Croatian nationalists pushing their POV, they imply that "Croatian" is the proper cover term. By the dictates of WP:NCON, the most common English term based on English usage prevails, and that is "Serbo-Croatian". This is the unacceptable version denying the existence of Serbo-Croatian. This is the linguistically accurate version. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be removed. "Serbo-Croatian" haven't existed before Novi Sad Agreement. Croatian language is at least one thousand and two hundred years older than "Serbo-Croatian".--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• No, the two varieties are closer than Bernese German and Zurich German. Of course the relationship between the languages has to be mentioned. Nationalism is in the wrong place here. I myself am rather irrationally nationalistic as far as my Swiss German language is concerned, but that doesn't make me barmy enough to deny that it is in fact German. Perfectly pointless to argue for a "Yes" here. Trigaranus (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• No. Removing it would be lying. The linguistic reality of the situation is that there is such a thing which in English is called "Serbo-Croatian" and of which Croatian, Serbian, etc. form part, which is supported by our NPOV sources. Not mentioning this would be distorting the truth = lying. Note to the defenders from the Balkans: This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether you should or should not have your own state. There are also Flemish nationalists, even though Flemish is a variety of Dutch and everyone acknowledges this. --JorisvS (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (since I'm addressing the question behind the question, rather than the question itself) - This article and Serbo-Croatian language describe the situation as one wherein Croatian, etc. are dialects of a single Serbo-Croatian language as opposed to them being varieties of a Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. There's no objective criterion for this distinction and if we have two conflicting viewpoints in academia--even if the conflicting viewpoint comes primarily from Balkan-language linguists in the last two decades--the information should be presented in a way that's neutral. The article is poorly sourced and largely presents the viewpoint of Croatian as a language that has been separate from other varieties for over a thousand years (I'm not sure if the articles on Bosnian and Serbian. also present this viewpoint). This is largely an WP:NPOV issue, though it can be addressed through citations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All three of the derivative articles seem to take the point-of-view that they are the "original" language and the other two are derivatives of it. The package is not well-conceived or executed. The Serbo-Croatian article is probably the most linguistically accurate of the lot. --Taivo (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• No It should be made clear that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are languages in the sociolinguistic sense of ethnic identity, not formally or dialectologically, that they are not even separate dialects. Having separate articles suffices to indicate a distinct identity; the ELL2 doesn't even bother with that. Plenty of refs from ELL were posted on the SC talk page (archived here.)

As for which is the "original", SC seems to have originated in Croatia, where there is still the greatest dialectical diversity. (Much of the Shtokavian-speaking area--much of Serbia--is relatively recently settled by Slavs.) But that isn't the same as saying Croatian is original, because all SC dialects are called "Croatian" when they're spoken by Croats. If we're going to go on formal grounds, the only way for Croatian to be original is for SC to be a synonym of Croatian, in which case either Serbian is a form of Croatian and most Croats speak that form, Serbian (which indeed is what some nationalist Serbs of the past have said), or Serbian is not a language at all, but only Croatian as spoken by Serbs. The only way for Serbian to be original is if Chakavian and Kajkavian are Serbian, which I don't think even nationalist Serbs would claim. AFAIK, it's true that Illyrian & SC were an attempt by Serbs to assimilate Croats and Slovenes (and maybe Bulgarians?), as Croats have complained. However, it was also an attempt by Croats to forge a single language from Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Shtokavian. If we reject SC on historical grounds, then we're rejecting Croatian as a unitary language as well.

I'm reposting Ivan/NoSuchUser's link above.[1] Worth reading for the political/historical background of the debate. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes The Croatian (Hrvatski) is a South Slavic language and it belongs to that group. One should not label it Serbo-Croatian in a manner that it over rules it's history. Croatian predates Serbo-Croatian. The Serbo-Croatian is a modern standard form that was created in the 19th Century. Croatian goes back centuries. It is unencyclopedic to do so--Sokac121 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes - Serbo-Croatian is a political and a macrolinguistic construct, Croatian and Serbian existed long before and they still exist on their own now. Vodomar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC).
• Comment. I am afraid that the positions in this dispute are being entrenched, and that the conflict escalates because nobody is seeking for compromise anymore, but only seeking for support for "their" version of the lead (interestingly, the body of the article, completely unsourced, is almost left untouched during the last few months). I am reluctant to participate in such atmosphere. I wish to echo Aeusoes1's comments, and state that more nuanced approach is called for: we should simply avoid unambiguously commencing ourselves to either of positions "Croatian is a form of Serbo-Croatian" or "Croatian is an independent south Slavic language", but seek for more NPOV and descriptive approach. It is a multi-faceted issue, and a black/white resolution is definitely not called for. If I must say: No, reference to Serbo-Croatian in the lead should not be removed, but I don't think that it was the right question to ask: sorry for being blunt, but it looks like one of loaded questions stated in various referendums prior to Yugoslav wars. No such user (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes - Because of Novi Sad Agreement. Because of all Croats, Serbs, and others that spend time in jail for not wanting to use SH language during existance of Jugoslavia. Because of wikipedia and facts, and not POV of some users that dont speak a single word of Croatian or speak a kvazi language Serbo-Croatian. --Domjanovich (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes This censnus gives a clear quantification Republic of Croatia - Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) Otherwize wiki presents only the POV of a few linguists. Due to this quantification 4.265.081 people speak croatian and 2.054 people speak "SC". --Croq (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

National censuses on language use that do not rely on third-party linguist census-takers, but on self-identification are famously unreliable. --Taivo (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not wikipedian, so I cant't vote, but here is my answer on all those "completely mutually inteligible" definitions from a few mostly non-informed among you who are not even speakers of any of these languages.

"Hrvatski i srpski jezik razlikuju se na glasovnoj, morfološkoj, tvorbenoj, sintaktičkoj i najviše na leksičkoj i stilskoj razini, oko 20 posto" (S. Babić). Translation: Croatian and Serbian languages are different in phonetical, morphological, transformal, syntaxical and mostly lexical and stylish level, around 20%. This comment of linguist S. Babić, an author of "Croatian literar grammatics, (1992)" goes for differences between standard Croatian and standard Serbian.

Comparation:

Communication works because Spanish and Portuguese share around 80% of their vocabulary, and most of the same grammatical structures, things like the endings on nouns and verbs. [2]

So it is similar situation with Spanish and Portugese. If you can invent Serbo-Croatian, idiom spoken by noone, then you should invent Portugo-Spanish too. You can always defend it with "it is node between something and something". The real question is: what is your motivation to erase Croatian language which is existing and developing for more than 1.000 years? And replace it with ill-defined quazi-idiom which was always related only to political issues in the Balkans and Central Europe in last 100 years and never got "materialised" in form that can be spoken by anyone??? 78.0.139.158 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC) One more detail: Serbian standard is based on Eastern Shtokavian, Croatian standard is Western Shtokavian. These Shtokavians are not the same! It's not one dialect as Kwami says. And Kwami doesn't even speak any of it! 78.0.139.158 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Such claims have been refuted numerous times. All four standards, incl. Serbian and Croatian, are based on Eastern Herzegovinian Shtokavian, and we have other refs that contradict most of the supposed differences between these registers. What's left is almost entirely lexical, and then in learned vocab. Serbian allows both ijekavian and ekavian in the standard, whereas Croatian allows only ijekavian, but both languages have both reflexes outside the standard. — kwami (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And all the linguists here know that, when measuring mutual intelligibility, there is a difference between two people who can't understand one another and two people who don't want to understand one another. --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. This can be understood as a provocation, and Wikipedia does not need that. I think everyone will be happy if that would change as it was before.--Wustefuchs (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a provocation is the demand here that the common language of Croatians, Bosnians, and Serbians be called "Croatian". And, no, everyone will not be happy with a linguistically inaccurate article. --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not common language of Croats, Bosniaks (not Bosnians) and Serbians... it is only language of Croats. --Wustefuchs (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. Serbo-croatian is nothing more than a failed experiment which tried to unite two much older languages, which in term have similarities because of historical (political) reasons.--Saxum (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about that Serbo-Croatian, we're talking about the other one. I know, having the linguistic concept and the failed Yugoslav (bi)standard both called Serbo-Croatian is quite confusing. --JorisvS (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, name of the other one is very poorly chosen. ISO 639-3 standard therefore use hsb identification instead of old sh (srpsko-hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian in English), so there is nothing confusing, but poor choice of name for macrolanguage is so obvious that ISO 639-3 standard deprecated it's identifier. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It having some language code is quite irrelevant to the issue here, we're not discussing those, were discussing the names, and having the same name for two distinct concepts easily confuses people. And actually, the name of the "other one" was in use long before the communist era. What is unfortunate is that the Yugoslav (bi)standard came to be known (also) under this same name and not merely under "Yugoslav(ian)" or something like that. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. So-called Serbo-Croatian is the political project, it started as political decision. No speaker until then called its mother tongue as SC. SC is an attempt to violently unify Serbian and Croatian, at the expense of Croatian. Linguistic submission of Croatian, degrading it to mere "regional dialect in Croatia". Things are worse since that project negates 2 other languages: Bosnian and Montenegrin, treating them as some Serbian dialect. Word "Croatian" in "Serbo-Croatian" is just a mask: that project obliterates Croatian, project of "Serbo-Croatian" is Greater Serbianist project. The last bastion of Yugocommunism, led by Greater Serb hegemonists. Greater Serbian (Milošević's) aggression on Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1991 had its "scientific" preparation with "there's no special Croatian language, it's all the same language, Serbo-Croatian (since 1986 requests were more daring "it's all Serbian language")//"Croats are merely Čakavians and Kajkavians (sometimes Greater Serbianists directly declared Kajkavians as Slovenians)" "there're no Štokavian Croats" (or completely declaring all Croats as Serbs), with usurpation of Croatian cultural heritage through lies, misinterpretations, filtered information, hidden truths... About "common term in English": There's English-speaking world outside of USA and British Commonwealth. There's a good reason why many non-English scientific works have summary in English, or why many non-English-speaking countries have scientific magazines written in English. Wikipedia cannot ignore that just because "these aren't from USA and British Commonwealth". Otherwise, stinks like ethnic segregation. Is en.wiki "WASP sources only" "non-WASP sources forbidden"? If en.wiki is going to ignore the science of small peoples, if it intends to ignore the scientific approaches from the non-English-speaking world (remember that "brain drain" goes from Eastern Europe to the West, not the other way around), if it intends to stubbornly defend the scientific fallacies from 19th century and to selfsatisfiedly close itself in its dome of glass, it'll more and more lose any credit. Kubura (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• No. In addition to the comments by Taivo, kwami, JorisvS and Trigaranus, detaching Croatian from Serbo-Croatian would distort the language history of the Balkans. A symbolic detachment has already been used as a prerequisite for Croats in insisting that their ethnic group had nothing to do with the codification efforts of the 19th century for Serbo-Croatian. Conversely it feeds well into the Croatian nationalist attitude of denigrating the Serbs and reducing Serbo-Croatian to an extension of Greater Serbianism. In addition, such a detachment also allows nationalist Croats to deny the contributions of some of their ancestors who were involved in something that was later held to contradict the Croatian historical narrative or ethnic consciousness. The Croatian nationalists want to cut their noses to spite their faces by basically covering up or minimizing the influence of Ludevit Gaj and especially Ivan Maretić, the latter of whom did much of the spade work in making sure that the Croats would even have a standard language which they use to this day. Vput (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. According to <http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=292-16> Ethnologue, Croatian language is member of Western branch of south Slavic languages. Please respect that. --Roberta F. (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, for the umpteenth time.. Even a number of Croatian linguist (before 1990, basically all of the Croatian linguists!) treat Croatian as a form of B/C/S/M complex, under the name of Serbo-Croatian or whatever. Modern national standards created in the last 20 years are all the same subdialect (Eastern Herzegovinian) of the same dialect (Shtokavian dialect). They cannot be "different languages" by definition. They especially cannot be "different languages" (being completely mutually intelligible and having 99% the same grammar) while at the same time Čakavian+Kajkavian+Croatian Štokavian are by some nationalist/ethnic criterion treated as "one language" ("Croatian"), and those 3 have very little in common and are not mutually intelligible. We need to depict reality as it is, not provide some politically correct coverage of it, wondering if it hurt someone's feelings. This article is already heavily slanted to Croatian PoV, and this is an important first step in disinfecting the article from nationalism that will hopefully in the near future usher in other major revamps. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Serbo-Croatian is an invention which can be located in the first third of the 19th century (Grimm, Kopitar) & was accepted, with various degrees of (un)ease until the breakup of Yugoslavia. It's a dated concept which falsifies languages history-as in, say, August Leskien's primer to this hybrid "language", or in a few other obsolete textbooks. Since this is a vote, and perhaps a good part of voters hasn't heard rational arguments, I'll number a few:

1) Croatian and Serbian are intelligible to a high degree. But, Danish and Bokmal Norwegian are so to even higher degree, as are Hindi and Urdu. And yet, no one- except a few weirdos- tries to reduce them to offshoots of a single language (Dano-Norwegian, Urdu-Hindi).

2) languages can be considered both as systems of dialects and standard languages. As a system of dialects, Croatian is composed of three dialects (Čakavian, Kajkavian and Western parts of Štokavian); Serbian of one, Eastern subdialects of Štokavian plus peripheral Torlak. As far as standard languages go, Croatian and Serbian are typologically-structurally the same according to typological linguistics or linguistic typology (of course, not on dialectal level). And- this is also true for aforementioned languages (Bokmal Norwegian and Danish, Urdu and Hindi- one might add Indonesian and Malay)- yet, from various classifications, one can see that no one tries to put Malay and Indonesian, or Hindi and Urdu, under the "umbrella" of an "over-language" (macro-language). When I say no one, I don't take into consideration dated texts or some loonies that stick to these concepts for whoever knows reasons. So, we're done with typological linguistics. What about theoretical linguistics ? It is composed of- there is not consensus yet- phonetics, phonology, morphology, word-formation (in Slavic languages not reducible to morphology), syntax, stylistics, lexicology and, perhaps, semantics. For complete picture one might add script and accentuation. Across these various fields, Croatian and Serbian differ ca. 20-30%, most visibly in script, accentuation, word-formation, syntax, stylistics and lexicon.

3) one can frequently encounter deluding analogies for Croatian and Serbian (various standardized forms of English, Spanish, French, German,..). This is misleading since there hasn't ever been a "mother" language or cultural matrix out of which emerged these "variants" of policentric/pluricentric languages (as is the case with American and British English, Austrian and Swiss German,..). Croatian and Serbian are not variants of a policentric language-i.e.realizations of one language- but different languages (one might call them cultural, Ausbau, whatever..).John Milton and John Locke belong to both British, Australian and American English. Marko Marulić and Marin Držić belong only to Croatian language, not to Serbian.

I could write on and on, but this suffices. If someone is incapable of comprehending this- it's out of malevolence, not ignorance. Mir Harven (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Once a reader gets rid of the 20% of Mr Harven's response that is invective, they are left with half of the remainder being exaggeration and manipulation of unrelated facts, and the rest being unverifiable assertion. His claim that Serbian and Croatian differ by 20-30% is complete fabrication without any basis in fact. His claim that only "loonies" group Hindi and Urdu together is patently false and easily disproven. Those are only the two most egregious falsifications. --Taivo (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This "comment" does not contain any argument. Pre-eminent Croatian linguists & lexicographers like Dalibor Brozović, Radoslav Katičić, Stjepan Babić and Tomislav Ladan have ascertained that Croatian and Serbian differ in ca. - minimum- 20% in their respective linguistic contents. And who are you to negate this ? Which are your sources that, perhaps, claim otherwise ? And what authority re Croatian language, its structure, history and the rest do these unnamed sources possess ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir Harven (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 October 2010

See: Argument from authority. Brozović, Katičić and co. are proven history fabricators. Just because they say something, it doesn't mean that it really is true. The differences among B/C/S standards are fairly trivial from a linguistic perspective: grammar is 99% the same (same phonology, accentuation, inflection, minor differences only in derivational morphology and a few particular syntactical constructs), and 99% of all real differences are completely regular and intuitively understood by all the native Serbo-Croatian speakers, and not greater in scope that differences between American ad British English. Your problem MH is that you only treat "proper" Croatian-only sources as authoritative, and rest are somehow "wrong".. We cannot simply follow such unilateral approach to such complex matter. Wikipedia regulations such as WP:NPOV require us to present it from a neutral perspective, and the main interpretation should follow the general consensus (not general Croatian consensus, but general consensus in the field worldwide). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Commissary-talk here again, I see. Well, let's go: 1) it is true that authority per se is invalid in sciences. But- linguistics is not an exact science-like physics and chemistry- but a humanist discipline where things are not nearly as clear as in more exact fields. Einstein was wrong re gravitational constant; Kelvin about the age of the planet Earth; Wolfgang Pauli about Dirac's relativistic equation for electron. In each & every case their positions & arguments were shown to be false, and the results were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and accepted-gradually- by virtually entire scientific community. 2) your claim that "Brozović, Katičić and co. are proven history fabricators" is, of course- a misinformation. First- who has "proven" this ? Second- this unnamed person who has, according to you, "proven" this- which are their credentials ? What have they published about Croatian language ? Which is the status of the published work of this unnamed person in linguistic community ? Which one ? Who in the world- outside of Croatia- is better informed about Croatian language than Croatian linguists ? Who are these people, and how did they acquire their knowledge of Croatian ? 3) Of course, the "99% similarity" is yet another nonsense. In some fields the difference is relatively easy to quantify, for instance in lexicon. One need only count the words. So, in 100.000 entries dictionary-putting aside Roman/Cyrillic difference, and ekavian/ijekavian spelling- the difference is ca. 30.000 words. Many are virtually unintelligible to the "other" speaker- for instance, the word for Bethlehem, which is Betlehem in Croatian, and Vitlejem in Serbian (not to mention scientific, technical or philosophical terminology). In the accentuation area the "difference" is hard to "measure", but it may be anywhere between 10% and 80%, which can be ascertained by boring counting of differently accentuated words in standard textbooks-of course, only these words which exist in both languages. As far as syntax goes- Serbian normative syntax, authored by Piper, Antonić et al., cannot even in theory be applied in Croatian elementary schools, since it abounds in syntactic structures ("Evo ga otac") which do not exist in Croatian language. But, as I've said- malevolence, malevolence,... Mir Harven (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The scientific standard is just as clear in the social sciences: it is exactly the same. The only thing slowing progress in these fields is the feelings that keep seeping into the theories. In fact, theoretical physics itself isn't immune to this anymore, with a lot of metaphysics finding its way into it, purely due to these feelings, eliminating most progress in the field for the last 20 years or so. --JorisvS (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Superstrings and M theory are examples of amusing aridity one gets when speculation is taken for scientific theory.And- couldn't agree less with regard to "social" and "humanist" sciences (Psychology- for instance, theories of Personality, or linguistics and Linguistic typology).They all (one might add Sociology and Literary theory) are efforts in understanding of the world, but not "true" sciences in satisfying commonly accepted requirements -for instance Popper's falsifiability (in evaluation of the existing theory, not the way a theory arises). Mir Harven (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The only way to have progress in any science is through dispassionate systematic research and discussion of arguments, no feelings allowed. Sorry to debunk your idea that linguistics should respect speakers' feelings regarding their language (sociolinguistics should investigate these feelings, again with the same standards). And regarding natives' authority on "their" language: Koro is a language recently discovered in India; not closely related to any other language, its speakers believed it to be a dialect(!) of Aka, among whom they live. --JorisvS (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What "feelings" are you talking about ? Perhaps those of Yugo-nationalists ? But, not to divert attention: your "example" of Koro language (or dialect) is simply ludicrous. First- why would anyone accept the notion that this language (or dialect) is, say, dialect, and not a language ? Who, with what criteria, can assert that ? Do you really believe this ? If you do, then you're uneducated re basic linguistic proposition- there is no way to distinguish a language from a dialect. (A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy) Second- how can this situation be compared with that of Croatian language, which contains written texts -at least- 900 years old, and rich vernacular literature- sacral and secular, philology, historiography, translations, dictionaries, grammars, technical writing, ...? Who are these foreign linguists who have examined Croatian fundamental texts ? What have they published and established re Croatian basic texts (say, Bartol Kašić's "Roman Rite" or Ivan Mažuranić's "German- Illyrian Dictionary") ? Where did- I repeat- they learn Croatian ? Do they know how to answer numerous questions about Croatian syntax, semantics, dictionary, phonology,..? Frankly- this is leading to the place called Absurdistan. Mir Harven (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is to illustrate how native speakers can be quite unaware of/wrong about what language they speak. Having a literary tradition is irrelevant to this. If you want to learn more about Koro's situation, just follow the references on the page, for example this one.

I'm talking about all feelings, whether these be of pan-Yugoslavicists or of Croatian nationalists.

There is a scientific criterion to distinguish languages from dialects: it is called mutual intelligibility. The only thing is that it is not a dichotomy, but a continuum, making borderline cases difficult. Croatian-Serbian-etc. are not such a borderline case, however. As for "Language=dialect with army&navy?": What about the thousands of languages without an army or navy? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. Serb-Croatian is a constructed language. It was created in the 19th century. The history of the Croatian language should be respected. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes "Assume good faith," the Wikipedian recension of the Christian saying "Judge not and you won't be judged."

Your insistence on cold linguistics, dear fellow foreigners, does not speak in your favor -- or Wikipedia's. The question here is subtle and emotionally charged; the answer is not to be found in linguistics. It is well known by now that a language is a political thing. From west Poland to east Russia is a continuity of dialects ; the isoglosses are gradated. Still the Poles have their own state and language, the Ukrainians theirs (and try to tell them differently!) and the Russians theirs. Evidently this notion of language is not a weapon for extremists, the way you try to push it, but a thing of real and tangible value, and a matter of pride.

In view of this we must admit and understand that the separate articles for these varieties exist because their speakers, as a matter of national pride, separate themselves from each other. This is easy to understand, in view of the war. Not the fiercest enemy of "Serbo-Croatian" will ever in his heart deny that there is almost no difference between the way he and his neighbors speak; but he will claim the right to name his language as he pleases, and justly. Who are we to tell him different? If he wanted to write that Croatian is a part of Croato-Serbian, you could call him a nationalist; he wants nothing like that. Do we, who watched the war from the side, know better how to make peace than those who lived through it? Or are they so coarse that they need us to tell them what to feel?

It is academic frigidity, and rather undemocratic, to neglect this reality and push the linguistic circumstances to the fore. The war is over; it pertains to the locals to make the peace. Leave the body of the article alone; create a linguistic category where it belongs, in the language-tree, and call it "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian" or whatsoever you please; but leave to these people their rights. --VKokielov (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll say that all I've said is opinion. It is, and most of all this opinion ought to stand out: that it is condescending and undemocratic to trample the feelings of locals by pushing upon them our mentality, and that a dubious one -- dubious exactly because it tramples their feelings. --VKokielov (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny but also morbidly illuminating in its sincerity. Here we have an article dealing with language, yet there's the insistence that we must NOT use linguistics to inform the content, description or analysis. This is just like saying that an article dealing with a mathematical phenomenon should not be informed by relevant concepts in mathematical theory, but rather with psychology of users or even literary theory for example. Vput (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Vput. Academic frigidity is also a sin, and has always been. Watch that Wikipedia doesn't become notorious for it. (And there is an evident difference between neutrality, which reconciles, and frigidity, which alienates.) --VKokielov (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of linguists is frigid exactly because it doesn't take into account the FEELINGS of the people whom its conclusions directly concern and touch. --VKokielov (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Feelings", VKokielov, have nothing whatsoever to do with science. Do you want a psychologist designing your computer? No. This is a language article. The science that informs us about language is linguistics. We have reliable scientific references to back us up. Your tears are not sufficient counter argument. --Taivo (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• @RfC: It should be removed. "SC" never really existed as a single language. Now described as a "macrolanguage" of Serbia (Ethnologue, 2006). Also, "SC" in "SFRY" existed only in SR Serbia - as the name for Serbian language. It was "official" in Serbia up to 2006. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The user Ali Pasha is a single purpose account established just for the purpose of commenting here. See this. I suggest that an admin watching here check to see if this new user is a sock of another user here. --Taivo (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the user:Chipmunkdavis has/had rather strange edit pattern [3], but I don't accuse him for being WP:SPA. Look at his presence: few edits, absent for months, few edits, than explosion on article Serbo-Croatian since 17 July 2010; until then, no particular interest. Strange for non-speaker. In fact, edit wars!!! 7 reverts on 18 July!!!!? 10RR 23:05 17 July-00:09 19 July (10RR in 24h 5 min). And then on 23/24 July (4RR on 23 July). And he got away without ARBMAC? Please, type ctrl+F and "Undid revision". Whome was he helping to avoid 3RR? Was someone hiding behind that name, while keeping the master account "clean of edit wars"? Kubura (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong question. Time and time again, I see the same kind of silly flamewars, each with its own little pointless twist, based on whichever set of preconceptions. When an English-speaking reader comes to the page called Croatian language, we know only that they were looking for what "Croatian language" means. Ditto for Serbo-Croatian. Since this is not the simple English Wikipedia, rather it's the one that supports non-trivial sentences :) and given the topics' obvious intricate connection, to explain one without ever mentioning the other would be a problem, yet to explain one by simplistically reducing it to a version of the other would also be a problem. What the latest argument here really seems to be about is how exactly to phrase the lead section. How about we actually discuss that in a form less antagonistic than a yes/no poll? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - There was no "Serbocroatian" before Novi Sad Agreement. It was an unsucessuful attempt of unification. Some users argued that Serbocroatian is existing since 19th century. It existed only in heads of some linguists, but it was never an official name or an official language anywhere. Croatian, not "Serbocroatian", was one of official languages in Austria-Hungary guaranteed also by Croatian–Hungarian Agreement. Was that also a "political decision"? I don't think so. Read the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language. Were this intellectuals "Croatian nationalists"? Krleža for exemple also signed that and we can't call him "nationalist", just the opposite. --Flopy (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Others' comments

Then, you should be consistent: there is more "mutual intelligibility" between standard Macedonian and Bulgarian, but no one tries to put them under umbrella of Bulgaro-Macedonian. Other examples I've already mentioned: Danish and Bokmål, Hindi and Urdu, Indonesian and Malaysian- and in no language classifications are these languages put under artificial umbrella language. The best example is ISO_639_macrolanguage#List_of_macrolanguages where only Malay macro-language is inscribed, along with some hbs "Serbo-Croatian"- but not artificial "Dano-Norwegian" (but a bivariant Norwegian language composed of Nynorsk and Bokmål). Also- there is no macro-language for Urdu and Hindi, languages even more mutually intelligible than Croatian and Serbian on colloquial level. I think that: 1) I've answered your objections with regard to the criterion of mutual intelligibility- it's not sufficient, you see, 2) also, it's evident that this business of joining and dividing languages in linguistic atlases and classifications is a question of purely political-economic power & influence.

And- yes, we do have army & navy, although in a pretty rag-tag condition. Mir Harven (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You have done a pretty poor job so far answering my objections. And I am consistent. The differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian and Danish and Norwegian, which both limit mutual intelligibility, are far greater than those between Croatian and Serbian. If you'd take Chakavian as your standard, we would all accept Croatian as being different from Serbian (just like we have with Macedonian). As for Hindi&Urdu and Indonesian&Malaysian, these are, just like BCMS, different standard forms of the same language, called Hindustani and Malay respectively. As for the SIL's 639 codes, don't be blinded by them, these are just as often non-scientifically motivated. As for your rag-tag army: please first read my comment about it above. --JorisvS (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a "blued" part, no sense in prolonged answering. 1) Bulgarian and Macedonian are more mutually intelligible than Croatian and Serbian. The choice of dialect does not have crucial bearing on the intelligibility- but, you probably don't know Croatian linguistic history to comprehend this. Suffice to say that Croatian writers like Pavao Ritter Vitezović (who wrote in admixture of Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian) or Fran Kurelac (who wrote in a private language, essentially Čakavian grafted onto Church Slavic with many Štokavian elements) are almost completely intelligible to the modern Croatian reader- unlike, say, Bosnian Muslim writer Hasan Kaimi (who wrote in Štokavian, but with many Turkish and Arabic loan-words) or Serbian Dositej Obradović (who wrote in slightly Russianized Serbian Štokavian vernacular, tainted with Church Slavic neologisms). Intelligibility is not the result of "dialect", but of absence of loan-words, dialectal provincialisms and communication of speakers in closely related dialects areas. 2) You didn't understand Danish- Norwegian argument (macro-language is Norwegian, and not Danish and Bokmal), nor Hindi and Urdu (they are not put, in linguistic classifications everyone points to, under umbrella of a macro-language). Well, this is pretty clear. Who has ears ..Mir Harven (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Name Issue

I'm going to summarize what I see as the problem here.

• At the beginning of the 20th century there was a group of mutually intelligible dialects here that belonged to a language we'll call "X".
• There were religious divisions within these dialects into Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim communities, but the religious boundaries did not coincide with dialect boundaries.
• Early in the 20th century, these dialects came to be spoken in a single united country--Yugoslavia.
• One of the dialects was chosen as a national literary standard and called "Serbo-Croatian".
• At the end of the 20th century, this single country was divided and the area of language "X" was divided between four countries--Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia.
• The boundaries of these four countries do not coincide with any dialect boundaries of language "X".
• All four countries use as a literary standard the dialect chosen for "Serbo-Croatian".
• Each of the four countries has adopted a different name for the literary standard of that country--"Bosnian", "Croatian", "Montenegrin", and "Serbian".

So there is a language that needs a name. That language has several dialects that are mutually intelligible and is spoken in four different countries. The country boundaries do not coincide with any dialect boundaries and all four countries have chosen the same dialect as the literary standard. That language was named "Serbo-Croatian" in the 20th century and is still usually called that in English. So what do we call that language? That seems to be the fundamental question here. Common English usage is clearly "Serbo-Croatian". Mongrel forms are beginning to appear such as "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian", etc. --Taivo (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity the powers that be in all 4 countries didn't think of a suitable name at the time (Bocromoser?) but unfortunately we can't invent one.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it's telling that the biggest point of dispute centers around the name. The original codifiers could find more agreement and compromise when deciding which features from Neo-Štokavian would be standardized. I would suggest "BC(M)S" or "Bosnian/Croatian/(Montenegrin)/Serbian" as an alternative since it appears to have some currency outside the Balkans as an alternative to "SC" or "Serbo-Croatian". What's also interesting is that these politically-correct terms are treated in the singular just like "Serbo-Croatian" (A construction such as "BCMS is spoken..." accurately treats the variants as really one language and strikes a compromise between recognizing standard languages and showing that the intra-variant differences are dwarfed by the similarities). Unfortunately adding Bosnian and Montenegrin to the mix extends the term, and also shows the effects of reconciling Balkanization with the findings of comparative Slavonic linguistics. This form of agglutination in the nomenclature could unwittingly be part of an analogy which could offend the very Croats who are presently so insistent on the separation from Serbian. There's nothing stopping speakers of other Štokavian sub-dialects from elevating their sub-dialects to standard languages that are insisted upon as being separate from (or mutually unintelligible to) the existing BC(M)S/SC. The Bunjevci of northern Serbia and Šokci of southern Hungary in theory could do such a thing if their regional allegiances would develop into more ambitious ones for statehood or at least greater autonomy. These scenarios would then likely upset Croats who subsume these people into their ethnos and thus speakers of Croatian dialects. BBCMSŠ anyone?

A term such as "Eastern Herzegovinian" is even better for me than BCMS, SC and similar terms as it's less associated to a nation-state or ethnic consciousness. Alas it's outside the public eye by being confined mainly to studies in Balkan dialectology and again incompatible with the 19th century ideal treasured by nationalists that there must be as many languages as nationalities. The refusal to admit the presence or even concept of a pluricentric language in the region is morbidly fascinating from a linguist's point of view and highlights a gulf between the outlook of influential linguists in the Balkans and that of their counterparts outside the Balkans. In other words, the impasse will remain as long as those outside the Balkans strive to adhere to "unsexy" but depoliticized means of classification using methods in genetic linguistic analysis while those in power (this includes people in education, for where else would children pick up these nationalist ideas?) in the Balkans strive to adhere to "sexy" but politicized means of classification as used in sociolinguistics.Vput (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. All in all it doesn't sound like "Bocromoser" is going to be a winner. I have been following this debate for a while and it is difficult to see how to reconcile nationalist and linguistic approaches.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR Warning

User:Jack Sparrow 3 has violated the 1RR restriction for this article. I placed a warning on his talk page. --Taivo (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whither Now?

It is clear at this point that there is an impasse on what to call the language that comprises the range of mutually intelligible dialects spoken in the former Yugoslavian regions of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. ISO 639-3 calls that language "Serbo-Croatian" and gives separate identifiers to "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian". Croatian nationalists, however, refuse to recognize "Serbo-Croatian" as a cover term for that language. No other options have been offered by the nationalists for what to call that single language. Arbitration has been mentioned. Is that the next step? As a linguist, I'm willing to compromise on some construction other than "Serbo-Croatian" as long as it is reasonable and has at least some usage in contemporary English linguistic literature. But I'm not willing to treat Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as if they were three independent and mutually unintelligible branches of South Slavic. They are not. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually standard ISO 639-3 is talking about hbs macrolanguage, not language per se, and hbs is actually new version of now obsolete sh identifier. Few remarks about above writing:

• mutually intelligible dialects - that can be talked about. A lot.
• Croatian nationalists - are you chauvinist or just plain POW pusher? How you dare to use derogatory terms for users who are not thinking same as you? Please check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch).
• But I'm not willing - nobody asked you what you are willing. Sources will tell how this article will look like, not any user of Wikipedia. Or at least that should be so if we will follow Five pillars of Wikipedia.

Please do not use rude or offensive language in future while in the same time trying to pose as mediator, thank you kindly. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two groups of editors involved here. There are those who are on the side of linguistic accuracy with linguistic references and there are those who are on the side of separating all things Croatian away from linkage with all things Serbian, including the term "Serbo-Croatian" or any wording that says Croatian and Serbian are differing national labels for the same language. Whatever we call the two opposing camps, the fact of the impasse remains. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, to reword Taivo's post in a less objectionable way:

It is clear at this point that there is an impasse on what to call the macrolanguage that comprises the range of mutually intelligible varieties spoken in the former Yugoslavian regions of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. ISO 639-3 calls that macrolanguage "Serbo-Croatian" and gives separate identifiers to "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian." A number of Croats, however, dislike "Serbo-Croatian" as a cover term for that macrolanguage but no other options have been offered by said Croats. Arbitration has been mentioned. Is that the next step? As a linguist, I have no problem with a term other than "Serbo-Croatian" as long as it has at least some usage in contemporary English linguistic literature. But, as sources say otherwise, we can't treat Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as if they were three independent and mutually unintelligible branches of South Slavic.

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Aeusoes1. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And concerning ISO 639-3, I only used that as a single example of a reliable linguistic source that uses a single name for the language that comprises Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian--there are hundreds, if not thousands, of others and most use the term "Serbo-Croatian". So don't get bound up with ISO 639-3 and whether it calls "Serbo-Croatian" a language or a macrolanguage. The point is that reliable and verifiable linguistic references use "Serbo-Croatian" as the label for the single language that comprises Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. --Taivo (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this description of the situation from the Shtovakian dialect article generally considered to be accurate by the editors here? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The shorter answer is to treat that description of Štokavian with caution.

The longer answer lies below.

That description is only partially accurate as it reflects a Croatian slant so as to amplify (or even worse, to make up) differences between Štokavian used by Croats and that by Bosniaks and Serbs. The questionable parts involve the place of Neo-Štokavian as the basis of modern standard Croatian and then the influence of Chakavian and Kaykavian on the standard language. That description repeats uncritically the Croatian account that Štokavian would become the basis of standard Croatian as early as the 17th century. In other words, the intellectuals/writers of the 17th century somehow had the capacity to forsee the decisive standardization efforts of the 19th century in the Balkans which arose on impulses of Romantic nationalism of the 18th century. The timelines are thus jumbled but this is the only way for linguistic history to align with the Croatian historical narrative. What's more is that the choice to create a Štokavian-standard for the Croats in the 19th century was given the decisive and effective push by the de facto leader of the Croatian national revival (Ludevit Gaj) who himself was a native speaker of a Kaykavian dialect. Expediency in countering rising Hungarian nationalism and supporting Illyrianism rather than that temporally-incoherent trajectory of language history dictated Gaj's thinking. Even afterward, there were several unsuccessful attempts to incorporate features from Chakavian or Kaykavian dialects into this emerging Neo-Štokavian standard. An example of this was an unsuccessful insistence not to codify the declension in the dative, locative and instrumental plural on the Neo-Štokavian (more precisely, Eastern Herzegovinian) model but instead on features typical of certain Chakavian and Kaykavian sub-dialects at the time. These "rebels" were sometimes called the "Ahkavians" since they wanted to maintain the distinction between the locative plural and other peripheral plural cases on the model of these non-Štokavian dialects using the ending "-ah". In contrast the Neo-Štokavian dialects had already merged the old endings for the plural in dative, locative and instrumental (-ima/-ama). Therefore the Croatian insistence of Štokavian being the "obvious" choice for Croatian standardization long before the time of Gaj, Karadžić et al. (i.e. something without a Serbian connection) fails to hold water when recalling the efforts of the "Ahkavians" for one. Their resistance and efforts show that they didn't think that Štokavian was an obvious choice as the base for Croatian standardization.

The second part that is questionable or misleading is the description's statement that the influence of Chakavian and Kaykavian on standard Croatian has been growing over the past several decades. The truth is that Chakavian and Kaykavian sub-dialects today are confined to rural settings and what is sometimes passed off as "Chakavian" or "Kaykavian" by modern educated Croats (most of whom are now no longer native speakers of Chakavian or Kaykavian) is a stereotyped form of Chakavian or Kaykavian with heavy Štokavian influence. There are festivals (e.g. poetry readings, song festivals) that attempt to elevate these dialects to more prestigious entities but outside these feel-good festivals, the dialects are under overwhelming pressure from the Neo-Štokavian standard language which thanks to the educational system and official media is held as the model for emulation and also the effective means to ensure social, educational and professional advancement in the country. Croatian language planners have expressed greater openness over the past several years to incorporate Chakavian or Kaykavian elements into the standard but so far it has been all talk and no action. Not even the wave of nationalist purism in the 1990s brought an incorporation of Chakavian and Kaykavian elements into the standard language even though the incorporation of such elements would have also achieved the same nationalist goal of differentiating the Croatian standard from the older Serbo-Croatian standard. Indeed the differences between the standard language and Chakavian and Kaykavian have been maintained or even widened since the 1990s by the reinterpretation of the "yat" reflex (i.e. regular allowance of "ie" which had previously not occurred natively as a reflex of "yat" in Ekavian, IJEkavian, Ikavian or JEkavian), use of neologisms or Štokavianized calques, and reimposition of elements last attested in Štokavian literature of the 17th century from Dubrovnik. Vput (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There're Chakavisms and Kaykavisms that had integrated into standard Croatian long ago. Even more, Chakavian and Kaykavian are even now influencing standard Croatian language. Kubura (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Kubura, would you be so kind as to put money where your mouth is and give unambiguous examples of features (can be lexical, phonological or morphological) of demonstrably/verifiably Chakavian or Kaykavian origin that are frequently-used AND have been codified as acceptable (i.e. "correct") in the standard (Neo-Štokavian) Croatian language of 2010? These features cannot exist in standard Bosnian or standard Serbian, otherwise claims of Chakavian and Kaykavian being exclusively part of standard Croatian are invalidated further. Vput (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vput. Here're some Kaykavisms that entered standard Croatian: kukac, tjedan, rubac some Chakavisms: klesar, spužva <ref>Faculty of Philosophy in Pula M. Samardžija: Raslojenost jezika (lectures)</ref><ref>[4]</ref> Kajkavisms are also vijak, puran, streha, krasan, hlače, udova, trh, skrb,... Linguist Tomo Maretić and his followers expelled all neologisms and kaykavisms from standard Croatian [5] (excerpts from the book by Miro Kačić: Jezikoslovna promišljanja), because that'd endanger "language unity" of Croats and Serbs. Čakavism is also spodoba, some all-Croatian words are now preserved mostly in Kajkavian, so one may find them as dialectism, like "podrapat" [6]. About the influences: Chakavian and Kaykavian (non) use of undetermined form of adjectives. I've read that previous month, I'll give you the source later. Remind me if I forget. Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My message above is example of, as Taivo said, "Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages...". Vput, I haven't forgotten you. I've been looking for the info about that influence in my books, thinking, on which page it was, in which book, which author...but then it came to my mind that I've probably read that on the internet. You're lucky, it's the online source :). Now I have to remember where did I read that... Kubura (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo: Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro are not "former Yugoslavian regions". They were consisting republics of Yugoslavia. They had the status of the state, explicitly declared in their Constitutions. Kubura (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic/region, it doesn't matter what you call them. What is important is that the boundaries of these areas did not (and still do not) coincide with any dialect boundary within "Serbo-Croatian" or "Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian". You're still just tap dancing around the fact that all of these "languages" are mutually intelligible variants of a single language. What do you want to call that language? And what are your verifiable reliable sources to back that up? --Taivo (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

From the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia: U Socijalističkoj Republici Hrvatskoj u javnoj je upotrebi hrvatski književni jezik – standardni oblik narodnog jezika Hrvata i Srba u Hrvatskoj, koji se naziva hrvatski ili srpski. In translation: "In the Socialist Republic of Croatia, the language of public service is the Croatian literary language - a standardized form of people's language of Croats and Serbs of Croatia, also known as Croatian or Serbian." Croatian or Serbian was another (more cumbersome) name for Serbo-Croatian. So respect the history Kubura: the notion of Croatian as a "separate language" dates back only recently in history, after the secession of the administrative region of Croatia from Yugoslavia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, anybody among us can say "I'm the linguist.". How many books in Croatian, Bosniac, Montenegrin and Serbian have you read? How many belletristic, how many scientific from various scientific fields, how many schoolbooks in those languages? How many works in those languages have you written? How many thousands of hours have you listened or even talked in those languages? In which science magazine have you published? "Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics"? Why don't you challenge "nationalist" linguists from Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro in their linguistic magazines? We'd gladly read your argumentation there. We'd gladly read when you answer the questions posed there, under the moderation of the true linguists and scientists, that require civil writing and expressing style, that don't allow etiquetting, personal attacks etc.. Or even better, challenge them in national daily newspapers from those countries. So you can enlighten those nations. Kubura (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant to the issue here, Kubura. I have asked a simple question and expect a straightforward answer. 1) There is a single language that people in various parts of the former Yugoslavia call "Serbian", "Croatian", and "Bosnian". 2) What do you want to call that language? 3) What are your scientific references to back up that name? It doesn't matter one bit whether I speak the language or you speak the language. All that matters in Wikipedia is verifiable reliable sources. If you want a scientific discussion then put up your references. Kwami and I have listed a score of references above discussing the issue. If you disagree with those sources, then where are your sources to counter? --Taivo (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, you and many other Croats continually miss the point. Native speakers of any language/dialect/idiom/variant are only preferred when it comes to USAGE (for example, I could ask YOU how to use futur drugi when communicating - there's little contest). However these same native speakers can harbour all sorts of linguistic misconceptions because the vast majority of them lack professional training as linguists equipped to deal with, analyze or understand matters of classification, dialectology, historical linguistics or even all of the reasons WHY what they speak/write/hear is in the condition that is. By your logic, if Serbs were to declare that THEIR language/dialect/variant were IDENTICAL to Croatian, then you as a native-speaker of Croatian would have to agree with the Serbs' claim because the Serbs would argue that their native command of their language/dialect/variant makes them the ultimate judges in determining the relationship of their language/dialect/variant with others.

The nationalist linguists in the former Yugoslavia have indeed been challenged by other linguists, so there's no need to widen the fight by adding Taivo (unless that's all you want to do). A recent example of scholarly challenge has come in Prof. Robert Greenberg's book "Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration" (2006) which describes the outrage and complaints of Croatian linguists who were initially scandalized by the book. Greenberg exposed Balkan linguistic myths and historical developments for what they were to the dismay of Croatian linguists. In addition, they weren't happy when he discussed the degree to which nationalism has infiltrated modern Croatian philological circles nor did they like his reluctance to side with them uncritically in their idiosyncratic reinterpretation of the development of Serbo-Croatian. Vput (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, dear Vput, do you know what? I was, as I discovered, a professor of eugenics in my former life. I had all the qualifications -- I had a degree on the wall. I taught a sacred teaching: that the whites are better than the blacks and Jews. I thought I knew everything, and had the right to teach it -- though all along my conscience blamed me. But I didn't listen. And now I'm a stinking programmer, and a Jew to boot.  ;)

Forgive the way I express myself. The moral is that your linguists are heartless when they think they know better, and you oughtn't suppose that they have any right to meddle here because according to somebody's curriculum they were the best students in the world. --VKokielov (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are forgiven (incoherent though your analogy is). Incoherency notwithstanding, the insistence on discounting scientific rigor (I suppose this is what you mean by being "heartless") reduces any field of inquiry to nothing more than a process dependent wholly on Brownian motion or human fancy, lacking even more explanatory or predictive power. To keep on the topic of language, if the prevailing nationalist attitude of Hungarians in the 19th century would have taken precedence over the comparative linguistic analysis, then we would be saying that Hungarians speak a Turkic language, and that their language has a trivial connection to certain languages spoken in Siberia and northern Europe. Vput (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, all this would be splendid, if you were arguing about substance. From the start you are arguing about names. Again and again you say that the rest of the world calls the language Serbocroatian. So it does. What of it? When a word evokes negative emotions among certain people, isn't it common courtesy never to use it in public? Here in America we have a word like that; it starts with N and raises half the hurricanes in the Atlantic. But it's only a word. Anywhere else in the world they would raise their eyebrows at us. Shall I make a redirect with that name? if I did, what do you think would happen?

as to the nearness itself, it merits no comment save that the languages are very close -- and that not in the introduction but in the body of the text, where it can stand modestly clothed, in lieu of glaring like the naked man in Times Square. --VKokielov (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and what you call "nationalism" -- a blanket name, make note -- is only a reaction. A reaction of force, but a reaction nonetheless. This campaign has gone on unflagging since Wikipedia began, and always the front soldiers are not those who have an excuse to defend unity -- children of mixed marriages, devoted activists of peace, ... -- but foreigners. --VKokielov (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

whaddaya know. the "N" word has its own article. hallelujah. But then let the second sentence of Serbo-Croatian language run: "the name "Serbo-Croatian" has generally been a linguist's term, with speakers of the language calling it Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian. Then cite Lockwood, as I will do presently here. --VKokielov (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, as per usual, derailing the discussion while spewing nationalist vitriol and ad hominems. Why are you not permablocked yet? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This assault and divertion of topic requires answer.
I do not tag my opponents as "nationalists", I do not accuse them for "spewing nationalist vitriol", I do not name my opponents as "PoV partisans" [7] and I do not say "sod off" [8] to my opponents. I do not tag whole wikiprojects as "nazi-pedia" [9]. I don't insult four nations on the national basis [10] "...not these ridiculous nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" or "Bosnian language" (and soon-coming in the fall 2009 "Montenegrin language").". I do not put myself above scientific institutions by saying [11] "Vandalism by several IP address, in what appears to be several PoV pushers in Croatian academic institutions.". I do not violate WP:CRYSTAL with "Almost all of them would probably call their language srpskohrvatski, as it was officially called before 1991""[12]. I do not etiquette my opponents as "nationalist bigots" [13] (someone else was warned by admin because of that). I do not tell to co-discutant "you insolent nationalist troll" "bigoted nationalist" [14] "Proven hardline Croatian nationalist"[15]. I do not delete warnings from my talkpages (deleting 3.528 bytes of content), leaving them hidenn in archive's history [16]. I do not switch thesis, but you do call your co-discutant's words as "nationalist nonsenses" [17] for the things that were your very messages [18]. I do not blank whole referenced articles with mere redirect [19]. I do not call opponents contributions as "rubbish" [20]. I do not revert to "my" version after my opponent kindly asks me to not to do that [21] and invites me to discuss. I do not attack, and especially I do not attack after my opponent kindly asks me not to do that [22]. I do not name kind appeals as trolling [23]. Maybe I sound too biased, but even other users told you "but I think that you are treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much. " [24]. I do not comprehend Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND and I do not proudly say that "Wikipedia is battleground"[25].
I do not badger every opponent of my idea on votings (with loooong messages)[26] [27] [28] [29] (how many times do you see "Ivan Štambuk"), badgering to every detail, that even the original abstainer changed attitude to oppose "So, dialog is impossible. Switching to oppose. --Millosh 13:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) " (Millosh is steward).
Are these admins biased because they warned you on your attacking behaviour and namecalling, e.g. "When you start with "Croatian nationalist bigots, most admins just turn off and ignore you. Try looking a bit less biased in your namecalling." (Ricky81682) [30], "Please do not call other editors names, such as "troll". You can be blocked for making personal attacks by doing that" (A.B.) [31]. Or Kwamikagami: [32] "But if you can avoid calling them idiots, or other personal attacks, and maintain a professional attitude..." .
I do not accuse my opponents that they are "sockpuppeted/abused by multiple users" on discussions [33] with usual tagging as "troll". I do not name the person I find suspicious as sockpuppet (on discussions).
I do not invite/incite to ignoring of discussions by etiquetting the opponents as "trolls" [34].
I do not attack my opponents, after they answer me on the questions I've posed. Ivan did this question, my prompt answer and after that he said "Kubura you're simply trolling ..." [35].
How many ad hominems attacks WP:ATTACK, uncivility WP:CIVIL, etiquetting WP:ETIQ, violating of WP:BATTLEGROUND do you see here?
Having opposing attitude is your right. But Wikipedia in English isn't your property WP:OWN, on which you'll block your opponent that does not want to think the way you want. Wikipedia is not "permablock-per-wish" project.
After such Štambuk's behaviour (especially since recent incitation to permablock), I take very seriously the message Štambuk sent to this user, that opposed to his attitude "...trolling as usual. If I see you blocking "trolls" such as ..., you are so dead."[36]. Kubura (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I do not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOT by calling the scientists cited by my opponents as "nutjobs", "ignorant", "intellectually dishonest". [37]. Kubura (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not insult major national hero, pillar of national literature, and national icon of the small nation, that is so proud of that person [38] "The murderous thug Njegoš".
I do not insult every nation that is proud of its sovereign nation and state "pitiful concept of a prisonlike entity called a "sovereign nation-state""[39].
I do not hide behing anonymous "we" with "...how one "feels"...Why should we care anyway"[40].
I do not attack my opponent with words "you display a typical knee-jerk reaction of a Croatian nationalist floating in his reality distortion field bubble that we've chewed over countless time already" [41]. Kubura (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not violate WP:BLP and WP:NOT by calling the scientists (cited by my opponents) as "proven history fabricators". User Aeusoes1 warned you with "you mention that Brozović, Katičić, Babić, and Laden are "proven history fabricators." What is the basis of this? How do we determine which Croatian linguists are academically dishonest nutjobs and which aren't." [42]. Kubura (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple issue. If Slavic specialists in Croatia say X, but Slavic specialists from every other part of the world say Y, then there is a clear problem with the statements of the Croatian Slavic specialists. --Taivo (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really get at the heart of the issue, though. We don't say there's a problem with the Russian perspective on Joseph Stalin simply because it's different, do we?

I'm not "warning" anyone, by the way; I'm getting at the basis of statements made about Croatian scholars. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

UN promotes language diversity, en.Wikipedia obliterates?

[43] "February 21 marks International Mother Language Day. The UN-sponsored event, observed every year since 2000, aims to promote linguistic diversity and protect the heritage of the world's 6,000 remaining languages".
As it seems, en.wiki does the opposite [44] [45] [46] [47]. Kubura (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And from the same article: "Egon Fekete, a linguist in Belgrade, says most academics still say a single language is spoken in the Balkans -- albeit one with numerous dialects." --Taivo (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, if you wish to promote Croatian linguistic diversity, you should be working to save Chakavian and Kajkavian. They are in danger of extinction, and pretending that Shtokavian is a different language when spoken by Croats than by Serbs does nothing to preserve Croatia's linguistic and literary heritage.

You could start by developing the Chakavian dialect and Kajkavian dialect articles as befits their cultural and historical importance, rather than wasting time telling English speakers how to speak their language.

Hm, perhaps I could write a newspaper article, "Croatian nationalists obliterate Croatian language in favor of compromise with Serbs", illustrating how upon independence Croats prefered to continue with their supra-ethnic Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian dialect of Shtokavian rather than reviving those pure Croatian dialects. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Croats were so inclined to be high-minded, then lest they forget to preserve the Torlak used by the Krashovani, or the Štokavian sub-dialect of Bunjevac_dialect. There are even fewer speakers of these than of Chakavian or Kaykavian. Vput (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Vput, Bunjevac dialect is the very same Štokavian subdialect of Croats from Zagora, Lika, W. Herzegovina and parts of W. and Central Bosnia. Kubura (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... it goes a little beyond that as the map shows. [48]

Bunjevac is classified as a subdialect of Neo-Štokavian-Ikavian. PEOPLE living in Zagora (almost certainly self-declared Croats), Lika (this would include what few Croatian Serbs remain in the region, in addition to Croats), western Herzegovina (this would cover citizens who would consider themselves Bosniaks, in addition to Bosnian Croats), western and central Bosnia (same situation as in western Herzegovina) and Vojvodina (the Bunjevci) use this subdialect.

Another way to look at the same thing is to divide Štokavian-Ikavian into Old Štokavian Ikavian (in this case Slavonian whose native speakers are almost always Croats and may secondarily consider themselves Slavonians (Slavonci)) and New Štokavian-Ikavian (in this case Bosnian-Dalmatian whose native-speakers include Bosniaks, Bunjevci in addition to Croats. Croatian Serbs cannot be excluded outright either as native speakers of this sub-dialect because not all Croatian Serbs have disappeared from Lika since the 1990s.)

The bottom line is that it's simplistic to associate Neo-Štokavian-Ikavian exclusively with Croats, and to insinuate that because Bunjevci speak the same as some Croats living elsewhere, therefore the Bunjevci and their language are extensions of Croatdom. Funny, how if we do a similar sleight of hand with Croats and Serbs who natively speak Eastern Herzegovinian instead of Croats and Bunjevci natively speaking Bosnian-Dalmatian, some Croats come rushing in professing outrage at the nerve of an outsider finding links to a demonized neighbour. Vput (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, plese, take a better look at that article [49].
Look at the co-talkers. In the section "Similar, But Different" are from Croatia, linguist Živko Bjelanović (from Split) and academist August Kovačec. They told it so nicely "The people of Bosnia -- meaning Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs -- could each say they're speaking their own, individual language. They say that it's their national language, and that it's not for Europe, Belgrade, or Zagreb to decide differently...The same is true for Montenegrins. If they think Montenegrin is a distinct language, then basically it is. If on the other hand they decide to share a language with Serbs or Croats, that would work just as well. But the tendency here is to see each of these languages as special and distinct."
On the other hand, the co-talkers in the second section are from Serbia, linguist Egon Fekete (Belgrade) and Zoran Hamovic (director of ...Belgrade-based publishing house).
Compare these attitudes. Who says what. The authors of the article also had to ask Bosniac and Montenegrin scientists, to complete the picture. I hope this helps.
BTW, Kwami, you've told me above "You could start by developing ...rather than wasting time telling English speakers how to speak their language." But on the other hand, you find yourself competent to hold lectures (of the language you don't speak) to the mother tongue speakers of that very language? Interesting contradiction. Kubura (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What you're pointing out is the difference between defining languages sociolinguistically and formally. See ausbausprache and abstandsprache. Sociolinguistically, Croatian is a separate language. That's why we have this article: the very existence of this article is confirmation of your POV. However, your POV isn't the totality of reality: formally Croatian is the same language as Serbian, and if you do not want to accept SC as a language, then there is no Croatian or Serbian, as the only viable languages are Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Shtokavian. That is, Croats speak three languages, one of which they share with the Serbs. But that would be OR, so we're back to Croats speaking one language which they share with the Serbs. Formally, that is, by abstandsprache.

No contradiction. I don't tell you what to call my language in Croatian (you could call it American, English, or British--I don't care), yet you're telling me how I must speak my own language. Sorry, that's not going to fly, and you haven't even provided an alternative, despite requests from many of us to do so. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the Issue (again)

A lot of bandwidth has been spilled above in tangential issues that are not exactly related to the issue at hand. This discussion:

• is not about whether or not Croatian should have its own article
• is not about whether or not Croatian should be called a "language" in its own right
• is not about the history of 19th and 20th century language policy in the Balkans
• is about what to call the (macro)language that comprises the mutually-intelligible Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian speech-forms (whether we call them "languages", "dialects", whatever)

This article isn't going to go away, neither is the Serbo-Croatian language article or Serbian language or Bosnian language. But the disputed language name in the first sentence will be something acceptable to all. The fact that these speech-forms are mutually intelligible is well-sourced. The literary varieties are all derived from the same sub-dialect of this (macro)language. But the Croats keep avoiding the fundamental question--what do you want to call the (macro)language that comprises all these mutually-intelligible languages? Hindi and Urdu are called "Hindustani" in linguistic literature. Danish-Bokmal-Swedish are called "Dano-Norwegian" or "Dano-Swedish" or "East Scandinavian". What do you want to call this (macro)language? And "Croatian" isn't an option. Saying that "Croatian" is ancient is meaningless because all human languages (except Creoles) are "ancient" in the sense that they all go back in an unbroken chain to the first language in Africa. Saying "Croatian is the ancestor language" is like saying all Indo-European languages derive from Sanskrit or that English was the name of the first human language. Croatian today is not the same language spoken 1200 years ago in the Balkans that was probably close to Proto-West South Slavic anyway. Instead of ranting about "Serbo-Croatian", give us some referenced alternatives. --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been established that the only common SC term for the language, apart from various compounds, is naš jezik, which has the difficulty of not being used in English. AFAIK, the only non-jargon English terms are compounds like Serbo-Croatian (rarely if ever Croato-Serbian), Serbo-Croat, Serbian/Croatian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/(Montenegrin), Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian or Serbian, etc. There's also Central South Slavic and Middle South Slavic; cf. South Central Slavic, which includes Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, and Central Slovak (Russian language journal 54:177), and central South Slavic (lower case 'central'), which is Shtokavian (Heuvel & Siccama, 1992, The disintegration of Yugoslavia, p 5). — kwami (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of English speakers have absolutely noting against the term Serbo-Croatian. Even the majority of the Serbo-Croatian speakers have nothing against it (you don't see many Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins opposing the term here, do you). The only ones who find the term "problematic" are some Croats - specifically Croatian right-wing nationalist extremist that are well-organized and recruited to "fight" here from Croatian wikipedia (if I translated some of the "motivational messages" in Croatian wikipedia's central discussion board that get regularly posted you wouldn't believe the amount of populist rhetoric it's filled with - the pro-SC apologists from this talkpage are frequently mentioned as "foreign mercenaries", and they openly discuss writing to the president to complain about their cause). Even within Croatia, there are a number of linguists and writers who openly endorse the term. The majority of the population of today's Croatia was taught in school for 8/12 years a subject called Serbo-Croatian language. The terminological dispute exists solely in their heads, because they subscribe to the old 19th century formula of language=nation=country. You can see that quite clearly e.g. in this comment: "There are no Serbo-Croatian people!". They truly earnestly believe that stating that Croatian language is a part of Serbo-Croatian clade (together with Serbian/Bosnian/Montenegrin) somehow implies that Croatian people (Croats) are somehow "genetically related" to Serbs/Bosniaks/Montenegrins, which invalidates their already quite fragile sense of identity. While you might be surprised with numerous references to history in their discourse, this comes as no surprise to anybody who has any in-depth knowledge of the region: the time is still in the Balkans, and these people quite literally live through history every day. What happened 15 or 65 years ago is more discussed than current events, and all the current events are perceived through the lens of history. Any attempts to reason the dispute from a neutral perspective are doomed to fail. They simply don't want to see anything Serbo- in the article and don't care if the rest of the planet doesn't share their isolationist sentiments. The fight for "separate Croatian language" translates in their mind to "fight from Serbian oppression", despite the fact that there are no Serbs here. We have all been "brainwashed", it's just that we don't know it! Anyways, the alternatives having any actual usage in the English literature are 1) Serbo-Croatian 2) BCSM. I vote for option 1) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like you're a brave crusader against some sort of a redneck meme, but the current intro is just plain not mainstream. If you were just being contradicted by a handful of wacko Wikipedians, then the former would be the simple explanation, but there is ample documentation available to show that it's actually the majority of Croatians, including most Croatian linguists, who have various levels of discontent with the old language nomenclature, and in turn simply use the new nomenclature. For many people, their preference for the new terminology isn't a religious issue, it's simply based on the fact that it reminds more of the Danish vs. Norwegian situation than of the 1950s. Many if not most English speakers who have contact with Croatian in the real world will also use the new nomenclature, likely for the same reason. The article should document that. Trying to restore the old nomenclature serves little benefit and instead just incites endless flamewars. Give it a rest. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Serbo-Croatian_language/Archive_3#.22SC.22_in_post-Yugoslav_English. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

first subsection that proposes new intro wording

How about this?

Croatian ([hrvatski] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the language of the Croatian people. It is spoken in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and neighbouring countries, as well as by the Croatian diaspora worldwide. The literary and standard language is based on the central dialect of Serbo-Croatian, Shtokavian, and more specifically on the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect, which also forms the basis of the official standards of Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. Of the other Serbo-Croatian dialects, two, Chakavian and Kajkavian, are spoken exclusively by Croats, and there are a few Croatian speakers of a third, Torlakian; all dialects are called Croatian when spoken by Croats. More generally, these four dialects, and likewise the four national standards, are commonly subsumed under the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, though this term is controversial because it reminds many Croats of the Serbian dominance of Yugoslavia, and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-(Montenegrin-)Serbian" and "Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/(Montenegrin)" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles.

— kwami (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would remove explicit mention of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" in the first sentence since using "and neighbouring countries" already includes B and H. Vput (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I included Bosnia because a large number (17%) of Bosnians are Croats, whereas in other countries it's under 1%, and because one of the moieties of that country goes by the alt name of the "Bosniak-Croat Federation". AFAIK Herzegovina is seen as a core area of the Croat nation, whereas Croats in Serbia and Austria are seen as peripheral minorities not fundamental to Croat identity. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph works for me. And, Ivan, if the Croat editors here are "summoning the nation" to come here to fight the battle against the cold-hearted linguists, then that constitutes canvassing and leads to blocks and bans. It's not healthy for Wikipedia and they should be reported if that is, indeed, what is happening. --Taivo (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's good, though it could use a little copy-editing for those less familiar with the issues. For example, is this The literary and standard language is based on the central dialect of Serbo-Croatian, Shtokavian, and more specifically on the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect, referrring to 4 separate dialects or one? Also, In one place you refer to Official standards. In the next you refer to national standards.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly more sensible than the current enforcing of the old nomenclature right in the first sentence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I added this, with two trivial changes (kept South Slavic and kept S-C ref tag), but Taivo reverted it saying it's "not". What's wrong? (Other than an apparent sense of WP:OWN?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Those were not "trivial changes". The whole issue is that Croatian is not directly a "South Slavic language", but is part of a complex of mutually intelligible speech-forms that constitute a single mutually intelligible language commonly known in English as Serbo-Croatian. Kwami's version was much clearer in that without putting the name "Serbo-Croatian" in the first sentence and calling the speech of the Croats a "language" in the first sentence. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you listening to what you're saying? Croatian is, according to this interpretation, not directly a South Slavic language, so saying it's a South Slavic language at all is wrong and has to be reverted? Seriously? What's next, should we remove the Slavic language marker from Russian language intro because it must only be referred to as an East Slavic language rather than overly generic Slavic? What possible purpose does this behavior serve? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy, the problem isn't saying that it's SS. No-one disputes that. The problem is that some editors are use that wording to deny that it's SC, to claim that it's no closer to Serbian than it is to Bulgarian. Imagine if Serbs wrote "Croats live in Croatia!" (true enough) in order to deny that there are any Croats in Bosnia; then when we revert, they call us stupid for denying that Croats live in Croatia. It's not what's being put in that's the problem, but what's being taken out. — kwami (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the note of the S-C classification still remains included in that same intro. We're not writing the intro in order to appease whatever other editor's POV, but to convey information to readers. South Slavic parentage of Croatian is a true factoid, and then there are two competing interpretations of its further classification. Saying that is informative to the reader and is not controversial per se. To provide one interpretation and censor the other out, in fear of the first one getting censored out, well, that just doesn't make sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Which two competing classifications? AFAIK, the only thing that might be debated is whether Kajkavian is truly Croatian or better considered Slovene, or whether the three Croatian "dialects" are best considered separate branches of (W)SS, or whether everything from Slovene to Bulgarian should be considered a single diasystem, etc, but we don't discuss any over those. Croatian being SC is not contested by any reasonable source that I'm aware of apart from that; the only problem has been the name we use. — kwami (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The first competing classification is that the proper(TM) lineage goes Slavic -> South Slavic -> Western South Slavic -> Serbo-Croatian (or whatever we call the group) -> Croatian. The second competing classification is that the proper(TM) lineage goes Slavic -> South Slavic -> Western South Slavic -> Croatian. One is unacceptable to some people, the other is unacceptable to some other people. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide RS's for the second classification. Not ones that don't bother with all the intermediate steps, but ones which actually classify Serbian Shtokavian and Croatian Shtokavian as separate branches of SS equidistant with Slovene, Bulgarian, etc. If there is no linguistic dispute about this, then it's not scientifically controversial, and shouldn't be presented as such. — kwami (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, I corrected the above, I forgot the "Western" part. The Ethnologue reference from the article does that, and local Croatian sources do so, too - I guess based on Babić/Finka/Moguš and such. The Western group included the S-C happy family as well as Slovenian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

second subsection that proposes new intro wording

here is my variant of kwami's introduction, with the citation replaced by Lockwood. --VKokielov (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian ([hrvatski] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the language of the Croatian people. It is spoken in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and neighbouring countries, as well as by the Croatian diaspora worldwide. Historical circumstances have had the result that Serbs, Bosniaks, and many Croats speak a linguistic unity which may be dispassionately called the Shtokavian dialect; the term "Serbo-Croatian" used by linguists and by the socialist Yugoslav government, is seen as controversial after the war and was never the usual name for any of the languages in the mouths of its speakers. Lockwood (1972), speaking of the socialist standard, writes: "But the new standard was at once affected by provincial peculiarities, morphological as well as lexical, associated with the two rival cultural centers, Belgrade and Zagreb (Agram). As a consequence, two somewhat differentiated forms of the literary language are found today, Serbian and Croatian. Speakers will normally declare themselves to be using one or the other fo these, the collective Serbo-Croatian being more a linguist's term than a popular name." Today, as before, the term our language (naš jezik) is used informally by speakers to refer to the speech of the Shtokavian area, whereas hrvatski refers to the national language of the State of Croatia and the official language of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Unfortunately, that is factually and implicationally incorrect in a number of points: Chakavian and Kajkavian are not part of the Shtokavian dialect. "Historical circumstances" is a meaningless but misleading phrase. "Serbo-Croatian" is more than a term used by linguists and the Yugoslav govt, just as "Croatian" or "jezik" are. (I assume you would object if I said "the term 'Croatian' is used by linguists and by the socialist Yugoslav government".) The controversy over the name, and certainly quotations, belong in the text, not the lead. Etc. The end result is that your version is an opinion piece that belongs in an editorial column, not an encyclopedia.

That said, the quote might be a good one to incorporate into the text. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

map

Is this map from the dialect articles accurate?

File:Croatian dialects3.PNG

— kwami (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A better, and more accurate (and sourced) map would be File:Serbo croatian dialects historical distribution.png. I suggest it be used as a replacement. Note that this is a map of dialects as of 5 centuries ago, prior to the gradual migrations of Štokavian speakers caused by Turkish incursions. I don't think however that it is of much relevance to this article, because at that period in history there was no Croatian state or national consciousness yet. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of its use in the dialect articles.

I added a modern dialect map to the infobox. I labeled it "Serbo-Croatian dialects in Croatia"; I didn't want to say "Croatian" because it includes Serbs in the east (also, I don't know in which way Shtokavian can be called a specifically Croatian dialect), but that might spark another edit war. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As Ivan has touched on, File:Croatian dialects3.PNG takes into account more recent geopolitical sensibilities. In Croatian descriptions it is common to divide Shtokavian geographically (and you can probably see where this is going. Bosnians and Croats are under "Western Shtokavian", Serbs are under "Eastern Shtokavian"), yet this method loses its power or accuracy when put under linguistic (particularly dialectological) analysis.

The starkest or most frequently-used linguistic divisions within Shtokavian are either accentual (Old Shtokavian stress can fall on any syllable while stress on the final syllable is unknown in New Shtokavian) or by reflexes of "yat" (which we know as "ekavian", "ikavian" or "(i)jekavian"). There are other isoglosses within Shtokavian such as the one that considers if older *-že- has changed to -re- or if all of the endings in the peripheral plural cases have syncretized or not, yet they are usually of interest to dialectologists and have not gained traction among native-speakers as ways to classify the sub-dialects. In any case this map eschews those forms of treatment and so I would treat it with some caution. I haven't been able to trace the source of the map apart from seeing that it's linked to the article on Shtokavian at hr.wikipedia.org. Coincidentally or not, this linguistic map also aligns rather neatly with the attitudes of people espousing "Greater Croatia" whereby virtually all of modern-day Bosnia-Herzegovina is by some "historical right" part of the Croatian nation-state. Vput (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was worried about. I've replaced the map. — kwami (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I bet that just as some see "Greater Croatia" on it, others see "Greater Serbia" (along the Karadžić's reasoning "all Štokavian speakers are Serbs"). I'm not really familiar with those differences between "Western Štokavian" and "Eastern Štokavian" of the 16th century, but those differences don't matter much today anyway because the dialectal picture is totally different. The whole purpose of that map is to show how Štokavian dialects have spread throughout the history at the expense of other dialects. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Serbo croatian dialects historical distribution.png

Description English: Distribution of central South Slavic dialects before 16th century migrations.--Sokac121 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying "South Slavic", "South Slavic", as if anyone ever denied that it's South Slavic. Of course it's South Slavic. So what? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

On this one I'd give Sokac121 a slight benefit of the doubt because of the appellation as "central South Slavic" (although even this is splitting hairs, because South Slavic is usually divided into eastern and western parts, with Slovenian and BCMS/SC making up the western part). Vput (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Map File:Croatian dialects3.PNG deals with historical distribution of dialects that are the part (or parents, if you like it) of Croatian language. Kubura (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I will answer Vput when I have a real keyboard. But understand that no one "canvassed" me. I am an enthusiast, and a foreigner like you. I came because I wanted to turn your attention to the essence of the dispute. You are arguing about names. Names are words, and like all words they may be deeply offensive. And you are frigid when you use linguistic arguments to defend a name, still more as an outsider to whom the name is a hollow sound. You have no part in this fight and no right to speak at this tribune. --97.238.214.37 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC) --VKokielov (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer or something? It has nothing to do with a "right" or a "tribune". We're talking about changes and content in an online encyclopedia article about a standard language, for crying out loud. Vput (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

now you've hit the nail on the head, it seems to me. To you that's all it is. To these people it is a degradation and a condescension. If that isn't obvious, read again what they wrote, and ask yourself why they wrote it, instead of writing them off as "nationalists". I would wager that these "nationalists" know more Serbs than you do. --VKokielov (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's irrelevant. We don't adjust reality to accommodate people who have difficulties with it. Under Homo sapiens, we list the genus under primates regardless of the fact that many people find it extremely offensive to be told that they are apes. Some people may still find it offensive to be told that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, but we're not going to be wishy-washy about the wording of Solar System to accommodate them. Now, if those Croats with hurt feelings can come up with a compromise name for their shared language that makes sense in English, we'll take it under serious consideration, but, AFAIK, there is no such name.

Likewise, there are some supra-nationalists who insist that there is no such thing as Croatian, or Serbian, there's only the common language, but we don't accommodate them by deleting this article either, because sociolinguistically there is a Croatian language, even if it can't be defined cladistically. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything left to say -- you've snatched my words away. do you really suppose that the absolute truth in facts must be said, UP FRONT, there where it wounds the sight of people who've lost friends and relatives in the war? if you do, then only because you haven't penetrated the tragedy in all its proportions. do you think this is an argument about fancies or whims?! puh. God forbid a war like that should ever befall you.

if you want this article to be encyclopedic and at the same time sensible, arrange for an explanation. Explain in a periphrase that linguists consider the language part of Serbo-Croatian, and then make clear, as Lockwood writes, that "speakers will normally declare themselves to be using one or the other of these, the collective Serbo-Croatian being more of a linguist's term than a popular name." No one asks for more. --VKokielov (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

an absolute truth that, I add, is irrelevant to the question, because we are arguing about the name, not about the mutual intelligibility of Serbian and Croatian. --VKokielov (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of naming is decided by what is common in English, and SC is common in English. It's not a linguistic term, but a popular one.

This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be the truth, not some watered-down approximation designed to avoid offending, or with the unsavory bits tucked in a corner where no-one will notice, no matter what atrocities people have experienced. If they're too traumatized to read it, then they shouldn't read it. I suppose we should water down instances of priests raping children, because otherwise it would be traumatic to the children who were raped? Just sweep it under the carpet so that no-one is offended? (Okay, that's not fair to the priests: what happened in the war was far far worse. But the ideal is the same.)

I agree that we should be clear that speakers generally identify themselves as speakers of C, S, or B. That is objectively true, and if it's not sufficiently clear, please try reworking the article accordingly. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, VKokielov, it's all the more reason to stick to rigorous application of linguistic analysis and stick to things such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexis. The name isn't irrelevant and none of us here (not even the "cold-hearted" linguists) have a problem with "Croatian". The trouble arises when the names acquire more value than the things which they refer to, and some names get deprecated to suit political agendas. It also leaves us with the apparent inconsistency of many sources which have used the name without malice even before (or after) that very name has been deprecated by some people (see how many comparative linguists and language professionals use the term "Serbo-Croatian" or "Serbo-Croat" when dealing with apolitical topics such as translation, prosody, etymology or morphology). It's a lot less political and of use to someone who's trying to understand the structure of the language, rather than come out taking sides in a debate that has been ongoing for many decades. Who'da thunk it that an article on language stick to linguistics? The article Ukrainian_language is probably closer to your ideal of an article on a language with its meandering into historical events, and focus toward portraying Ukrainian (and implicitly its speech community) as a victim of Polonization and Russification. Interesting, but secondary in an article that's supposed to focus on Ukrainian as a language/dialect/variant/communicative code. Vput (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how you VKokielov think that everybody who has lost somebody in the war is against the term Serbo-Crotian. Well of all three nations involved, Croats suffered the least casualties, and yet they're by far the most vehement and vocal opposition here. How do you explain that? Could it simply be that we're not dealing with a general Croatian sentiment as regards the appellation Serbo-Croatian, but rather a tightly-knit group of well-organized individuals pushing for their particular (nationalist) agenda? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't believe that "Serbo-Croatian" was deprecated after the end of Yugoslavia. I believe the Croats (and Bosniaks) when they say it was imposed at the beginning. Neither do I say you should delete the Serbo-Croatian article, though it would help to present things in perspective and without belittling the sentiments of the people who count in this discussion. I don't even want you to erase mention of "Serbo-Croatian." But I want it to stand further away, and, if it must be in the introduction -- if there's no getting around it -- then without a sales pitch and without making it look like we know better than they do. --VKokielov (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and of course the Serbs minded it least of all; Belgrade was the capital and the numbers were theirs; not to mention that when the war got into full swing the Yugoslav units were full of Serbs and fighting for them. If the capital were Zagreb and the Bosniaks were counted Croats (as they had been, and not once before -- as during the second world war) then the Serbs would be arguing here instead of the Croats. --VKokielov (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

VKokielov, the only people "who count" in this discussion are the English speakers who will be reading this. That is our audience--our English-speaking readers. Not Croatians, unless they happen to be users of the English language Wikipedia. It doesn't matter one bit what Croatian speakers in Zagreb think about this. This is the English Wikipedia and will accurately use the common English terms for things. Wikipedia is not an arm of the Croatian government or any other government. It is a neutral encyclopedia, and as such, uses scientific accuracy as a measure of things, not "feelings". --Taivo (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

right. "scientific accuracy." again I raise it up: eugenics was also a science. do you really think there is such a thing as scientific accuracy in the humanities? hrh. --VKokielov (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and lest someone take my hypothesis about Belgrade and the Serbs the wrong way: people are people. no one has the right to say he is holier: not the Serbs, not the Croats, not my Jews. but neither does anyone have the right to demean anyone else, and that is what you do when you don't take into account the motivation of the Croatian editors arguing against you here -- when you try to show them a fringe, a band of rascals who will overturn your sanctimonious, holy truth. They aren't; they are people who want to have a right to their own -- a people who have not had that right, except under that maniac Pavelic, for many, many centuries. --VKokielov (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources and scientific references, VKokielov, then your comments are irrelevant. That's all there is to be said on the matter. Croatian emotions are not what Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, is based on. If Croatians are offended that the most common English term is used in the English Wikipedia, then they can go to the Croatian Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no such things as "right for a language" VKokielov. Some Croats imagine that there is some kind of right for "linguistic self-determination" (much as there is a right for national self-determination), but there really isn't. It's imaginary, in their brainwashed heads. I've read about that pravo na jezik more times than you can possibly imagine, and haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting it. Snježana Kordić does an excellent job in dismantling that particular myth in her recent book Jezik i nacionalizam.

You speak about the term Serbo-Croatian being "deprecated" Really? You're a Russian, right? Last time I checked all the Russian Slavists and Slavic Studies departments on Russian universities were still abundantly using the term, as they have been continually for the last 2 centuries.

Your historical perspectives are also deeply flawed and biased. The term Serbo-Croatian originates in the early 19th century, long before Communist Yugoslavia was created in 1945. And even within Communist Yugoslavia numbers meant absolutely nothing - it was not a democracy, and rights of the constituent narodi/narodnosti were guaranteed by the federal/state constitutions. It was not possible for more numerous Serbs to "outvote" Croats or Bosniaks. Belgrade was chosen as the capital because it was the most populous city. I don't see how any of this has anything to do with this article though. But it's really interesting how you mention it to justify their actions. I wonder why don't you go a bit further down the history ladder and mention all those distinguished Croatian intellectuals of the 19th and early 20th century that were pivotal in the creation of Serbo-Croatian literary language as it is today? Why only mention these right-wingers who worship Pavelić/NDH and their purist separatism? We others are not "pure" Croats for you? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"The term Serbo-Croatian originates in the early 19th century". Give us the source. And exact year.

Second. Who are those Croatian intellectuals that are mentioned here "who worship Pavelić/NDH and their purist separatism"?

You said that "Belgrade was chosen as the capital because it was the most populous city." In 1910., Zagreb had 136,351, in 1921 - 167,765 inhabitants, in 1948 - 356,529. Belgrade in 1905 - >80,000, in 1910 - >100,000, 1940 - >320,000 (with Zemun). It's more the case of succession of Kingdom of YU and the fact that Karađorđević dinasty wanted to have capital in their own country, Serbia, whose capital Belgrade was. And I'm not sure that Zagreb (neither Belgrade) was the most populated city in 1918 in area of later Kingdom of YU. Kubura (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all: Wikipedia:Article titles (aka Wikipedia:NCON) regards only titles, not lede. This means that Taivo is way off course.
Also, the "SC" supporters just love Ethnologue, esp. 14th ed. when the publication listed "SRC" as "a language of Yugoslavia." This edition clouded the fact that that "Yugoslavia" was in fact Serbia and Montenegro.
The 16th ed. of said publication list the "language" (code: hbs) as "a macrolanguage of Serbia." Taivo simply omitted the fact that Serbo-Croatian was listed only under "Serbia". This means that some Serbian correspondents with SIL wanted to portray the Croatian language, as well as the Bosniak language as offshoots of "Serbo-Croatian" which is (as they see it) in fact the Serbian language. And what do you know, it's more than meets the eye. In the SFRY only SR Serbia used as the official language "SC", and continued to use it (constitutionally) up to 2006!
Who gave the right to Kwami to insist on false linguistic theories such as "macrolanguage" when he (or Štambuk) listed the Croatian language as part of "Serbo-Croatian" in the infobox? They like Ethnologue when it suits, but not when it presents the hard fact that Serbo-Croatian was only a name for the Serbian language (with some less internationalisms). They also just love that Croatia is as democratic as it is, so that every person had (in 2001 census) the right to declare its language as wished. But in the same time - deny any possibility to include the correct data in the pertaining article, while idly playing with figures and insting on 21 or even 23 million of alleged speakers of "SC".
Taivo lists some paper that were printed in times when the international community didn't know (or pretended to not know) what is going on. For up to 1999-03-25 the "SFRY" had its diplomatic representation in USA. The flag of "SFRY" was lowered in New York (in front of UN HQ) for the last time on 2000-11-01 (or the day before).
When would those "SC" supporter realise that what they advocate is completely false. WP:NCON has no bearings on the lede. The infobox contains fabrications. There was no proto-SC. Croats who started the notion of "Croatian or Serbian" haven't included Serbian words, but expressed political opinion (of that time frame). Ivan probably doesn't know that from 1965-04-05 at birth, citizens were registered at state offices - but without their nation listed, not even the nation of parents was listed. This practice existed even before that date, at employment, issuing of work permits, etc.
Would this mean that Croats (born between 1965-04-05 and 1990) aren't Croats? Obviously - it wouldn't, but for some discutants (here) everything goes. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Macrolanguage" is an invention of Ethnologue. We don't use it here. SC is simply an abstand language, whereas Croatian and Serbian are ausbau languages. That is, SC is a language on formal grounds, whereas Croatian is not, but Croatian is a sociolinguistic language, whereas SC is not. Simple enough. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you cite the Ethnologue as some reliable credible source, but when it does not suits you, you simply decline its terminology, just like that.
Who are those "we"? Don't hide behind "we". Those "we" are not all of us. Nobody WP:OWN owns this article, neither those "we".
So, are those "we"? World's most eminent linguists, Slavists, Croatists, so they can tell us which sources are good, and which not? Can you give us their names? Kubura (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Response from Suspected Sock Puppet

Note that Ali Pasha was just registered in Wikipedia as a single purpose account here. This response is clearly from someone who is an experienced user and not a new editor. Will one of the admins please examine this? It's clear that Ali Pasha is a sock puppet. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, please do not edit my contributions.

Taivo should stop. He knows what is the proper procedure, and if he believes that I am a sock of any of the users who participated in this discussion - he can ask to check - but in the appropriate place.

Furthermore, he should stop editing my edits (by placing them under headlines). Taivo is not the moderator of this discussion.--Ali Pasha (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A majority of those who voted "yes" in the poll above were recruited from Croatian wikipedia, where there is a post inviting everyone to confirm their "Croatdom" by casting a vote here [50], and that under a thread that has been lingering in the central discussion board since July (administrators refuse to archive it so that they can recruit more "support"). If User:Ali Pasha is not somebody's sockpuppet (which I think it is), it's almost certainly somebody's associate canvassed here. The choice of a name Ali Pasha is indicative: perhaps they're trying to make it appear that he is a Bosniak by using an Oriental-sounding nickname, so that the excessive Croatian-only support for name change could be diluted. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a neutral party - Canvassing for support elsewhere will not help either side; please would participants in these discussions take note that simple strength of numbers will not decide this issue, only strength of arguments. Thank you. Keristrasza (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Štambuk is accusing us of extreme nationalism, but over the past year he has fought a vigorous campagin against the croatian language. Any person who does not share his point of view is met with a barrage of abusive words. He works like a man possesed, driven to wipe out any trace of the word Croatian as much as he can from en.wikipedia and from the wiktionary. Here is the list of words for which the defintions were destroyed by Ivan without consultation with others. --Roberta F. (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot be "destroying Croatian language" because that language doesn't exist. What was being done on Wiktionary, and was completed quite successfully, was unifying the separate treatment of B/C/S/M standards of Serbo-Croatian language under a single header. It significantly reduced redundancy and increased readability. By any measure, it was a right thing to do once the coverage of SC lexicon passed a certain threshold and a thorough overlap in content began to emerge. Ullmann's "recovery report" will forever remain a fantasy, and the bot "recovering" the obsolete entries will never be run because it's badly written and generates junk, and Ullmann's knowledge of Serbo-Croatian is zero so he cannot fix it. The outcome on SC vote was unfortunately inconclusive, but only because you "Roberta F." canvassed a bunch of editors from Croatian and various other pedias to oppose it (like your "Catholic brethren" from Poland..OTOH it was quite lovely sight to see people who can't otherwise stand each other much standing against a "common enemy"!), and there was no voting eligibility guidelines in practice at the period, but which was rectified later in this vote which you also unsuccessfully tried to sabotage (in anticipation of the next UnifiedSC vote which you'd then be unable to tilt). If anyone is "abusive", it's your clique which repeatedly invokes ancient history and politics as arguments. If anything, I am orders of magnitude more civil than you are on your home wiki, where I'm repeatedly painted with delightful epithets such as bolesnik mesijanskog tipa, jugounitarist etc. So please look at yourselves first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The manner you address some users, the harsh language, nationalistic labelling and assumption of conspiracy should not be tolerated on en:wiki or on the street. Threatening someone with death, and then just shrugging it of as a figure of speech, is also something unwarranted. Is really anyone who is pitted against you in an argument deserving to be hit always below the belt, the distance of the wikipedia and the nonsanctioning of your behaviour has only given you wings to become bolder and meaner in your addresses to any user who dares to write someting about Serbo-Croatian and connected articles. Wikipedia is not yours and it is not mine, it is there for everyone - but you constantly bully anyone who dares to think differently. --Roberta F. (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan, you wrote "I cannot be "destroying Croatian language" because that language doesn't exist.". Which language was official in Croatia, when it was in Austria-Hungary, Croatian or "Serbocroatian"? It was one of them. Could you give me the sources for "Serbocroatian"? My source is for example the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement (read the text of Agreement) for "non existing" Croatian. --Flopy (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I red it for you:

• ....izvornom i hrvatskcom sastavku takodjer izdati i proglašenja radi saboru kraljevinah Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije što prije poslati.

• U svemkolikom obsegu kraljevinah Hrvatske i Slavonije službeni je jezik hrvatski toli u zakonodavstvu, koli u sudstvu i upravi.

• Za organe zajedničke vlade ustanovljuje se takodjer hrvatski jezik službenim jezikom unutar granicah kraljevinah Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije.

• Predloge i spise u hrvatskom jeziku sastavljene; pa iz kraljevinah Hrvatske i Slavonije na zajedničko ministarstvo podnešene, imade to ministarstvo primati i rješitbe svoje na istom jeziku izdavati.

• ...da se zastupnici istih kraljevinah tako na zajedničkom saboru kako i u delegaciji mogu služiti i jezikom hrvatskim.

• Na zajedničkom saboru stvoreni i podpisom Nj. c. i kr. apošt. Veličanstva providjeni zakoni izdavat će se za kraljevirte Dalmaciju, Hrvatsku i Slavoniju u izvorniku hrvatskom i odaslati saboru tih kraljevinah.

This was written in 1868. An official document, an agreement. It was officiacly also written by "Croatian nationalists" and sanctioned by King. --Flopy (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this language that you cite Flopy? Is it "Croatian"? I'm no so sure, because most of our fellow Croats would have a hard time understanding words such as as svekomlikom, obsegu, kraljevinah, toli, koli. In fact, if you translated it to modern language, it would be (almost, yat variants and few lexical pairs such as službeni : zvanični aside) the same in B/C/S. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You wrote just in order to write something. Nothing else. It's Croatian from the middle of 19th century, the source is clear: official language in Croatia was Croatian, that has nothing to do with "službeni" - "zvanični". You didn't answered my question and you didn't give the sources for "Serbocroatian" in 19th century and I gave anofficial source for Croatian. Even more: in 1847 the Croatian Parliament decided that Croatian is the official language in Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia instead Latin. Croatian, not "Serbocroatian". So, please, don't try to obscure the facts. I want to see your sources, I gave you 2 sources so far. --Flopy (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

-

"Our fellow Croats" - when did you become a Croat, "Ivan"? And who gave you the right to speak for the most of Croats?--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Croat by nationality and ethnicity. By the power of reason I have a right to speak in the name of the enlightened and dispel all the propaganda and lies hindering back the progress of species. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing to demonstrate that your arguments are fragile and in essence - worthless. You're giving examples of "Croatian" which majority of the modern-day self-styled Croats can't even read. It's 100 times more different from modern "Croatian" than modern "Croatian" is different from "Serbian". For any practical purpose - it proves nothing.

Your clinging to the notion of an "official language" - worthless construct linguistics-wise, is indicative of a statist mindest. Flopy, there is no such thing as an "official language" with respect to how people speak. It is however characteristic of regimes violating basic rights and liberties, whereby you are required to follow some prescribed from of a communication code imposed by an authority (some kind of a prestigious dialect) in order to enjoy services provided by money that has been coercively taken from you. Think about it Flopy: there are thousands of languages in this world, and only two hundred-something nation-states, meaning that 99% of them are not official (and of those that are official, there is lots of redundancy: e.g. English alone is official in 53 countries). Does it mean that they do "not exist" ? Gees, tell it to the millions of their speakers. Besides, the freest and greatest countries in the world, such as USA, Great Britain or e.g. Germany, do not have constitutionally-mandated "official language". They do however have a form of de facto lingua franca, but nobody will sue you if you don't speak "properly". Compare that freedom-minded mentality to that of yours Flopy. Remember when that scumbag Vice Vukojević of the Croatian Constitutional Court back in the days of Tuđman's dictatorship tried to pass a law by which anyone not using their prescribed "standard Croatian" would be forced to pay a hefty fine? That's not freedom Flopy, that's slavery and serfdom. Speaking of which, we might as well add that Croatia (an administrative region of Austria-Hungary at the period) was still a feudal hellhole by the mid-19th century, with Latin as the official language of the parliament (the first who dared to used Slavic speech was Sakcinski in 1843), with the overwhelming majority of the population being illiterate, obediently working as serfs and paying their monthly tithe to the Vatican mafia. So color me unimpressed by your sources, I think of them nothing but irrelevant to the point of the discussion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to discuss with sources, but you officialcly don't have any of it, so you write essays (again). As soon as you started writting about "Vatican mafia" I knew you don't have any arguments. Such strong words didn't impress me. You are writting about dictatorship and that Croatian as a standard languauge has been forced in the 1990-s. You gave me one more argument. What was the Novi Sad Agreemnt? Freedom? Wasn't forced? That wasn't dictatorship? 1847 Croatian Parliament forced Croatian to speak Croatian and in 1954 it has been made free? Very good Ivan, just continue to give me more arguments. I can't wait. But remember, strong words may impress some other, me not. Sources against sources. --Flopy (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Decrees of a bunch of feudal landowners are not a valid source. See: WP:SOURCE. Neither they are indicative of the contemporary linguistic trends, as I've argued above. Neither does "officialdom" matter much, esp. so in the Balkans where the average lifespan of a country is 20-30 years.

1954 Agreement was basically a confirmation of established literary practices. Read Croatian writers from pre-1954, and post-1954. See any major difference? No. You shouldn't simply cling to some arbitrary pieces of paper as if that presents some ultimate proof of something. I know historians like to see the world in terms of agreements and contracts between peoples, but Jesus Flopy, we're talking about language here, not army, trade, parliaments or whatever. Identities and countries come and go, but languages are much less agile. You yourself were born in a country called Yugoslavia, but in your ID card/papers it says "country of birth: Croatia". The point is: so what? Yes Croatian linguists were pretty much free language-wise. They (Matica hrvatska) abolished the cooperation on the second volume of Serbo-Croatian dictionary with Matica srpska. They voted on Deklaracija opting for separate "Croatian literary language. All that without anyone losing so much a single hair of their bald heads. Doesn't really sound like totalitarian dictatorship to me. In Tuđman's Croatia sentiments were much more worse towards those not enjoying the support of the regime. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again your essays and personal political attitude. The falsification of history, under Tuđman it was dictatorship and in Xugoslavia it was freedom. A joke of the year. But this dooesn't provoke me at all, if that is your intention. I feel nothing then commiseration. Nothing was established before 1954. Politic forced the thing. There was't feudalism in 1868. My sources are very much valid because you and your follower are claiming all the time "SC" is existing since 19th century (1850) and my sources are proofs it was not so. We are talking about language, yes. So, the official language was not and isn't, by your opinion, the language of common people. Argumentum ad absurdum. "SC" is not "the contemporary linguistic trend". "SC" was a product of politic and its propaganda not Croatian what you are claiming all the time. --Flopy (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

about names

Ronelle Alexander, from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian: a grammar, 2006, p. 385, "Novi Sad and beyond"

Although the signatories of the 1850 Vienna agreement concluded that Serbs and Croats spoke one language with one grammar written in two different alphabets, they did not specify a name for this one language. This lacuna was filled in Titoist Yugoslavia. According to the Novi Sad agreement of 1954 the language was again seen as one language with one grammar written in two different alphabets. Now, however, it also had two official names and two official pronunciations. The two alphabets were Cyrillic and Latin, of course; the two names were the mirror-image terms srpskohrvatski and hrvatskosrpski.

Let this dispel questions about the motivations behind the provenance of the name (for we are arguing about the name, aren't we?) and the date thereof. --VKokielov (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The name Serbo-Croatian started to be used in the early 19th century, and by the turn of the century it became de facto the standard name for the language, also in English, German and Russian (which had the strongest Slavic studies circles), abundant evidence of which you can find on archive.org and books.google.com. The 1850 Vienna Literary Agreement was more like an informal meeting of prominent intellectuals on how to steer the ongoing Slavic national revival movements which were heavily regionally confined and diversified along dialectal lines (e.g. in Croatia there were also some Chakavian an Kajkavian literary circles). It had zero official/legal value. After two centuries of tradition, the picture of the term's usage today is much more clear than it was in 1850. At any case, it predates Titoist Yugoslavia by more than a century. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

even if the name appeared in earlier discourse -- as in Bosnia after the Austrian occupation -- yet, never without bitter discontent from the population. Please understand how difficult it was for the three religions to be reconciled there, when Petar Njegoš, the first man of Montenegro and renowned poet, wrote lines like this:

Докле Турци све њих савладају

многе ће се буле оцрнити;
борби нашој краја бити неће
до истраге турске али наше...

Until the Turks have conquered one and all,

Many a Turkish bride shall cover her face in black;
Our fight and war shall see no end
Till we have wiped out the Turks, or they us.
That was the spirit of the time among the nations; can you blame anybody from those parts from feeling the way he does? I can't -- my mouth won't open to do it. --VKokielov (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You bet I can blame them, for it is them and you VKokielov that perpetuate this ethno-religous sense of identity which has under the blessing of statism been the cause of all the wars in the history. The murderous thug Njegoš that you cite in his most famous work The Mountain Wreath openly called for a genocide against "Turks" (a term which at that period also included Slavic Muslims that we call Bosniaks today). It's a typical Balkanic fairy tale that extols the culture of murder against "others", all of course under the righteous blessing of a religion. (Njegoš as a "Prince-Bishop" is reminiscent of certain ME theocracies). In the 1990s wars we also had popovi, hodže and fratri all blessing guns and tanks and preaching jihads against "others" worshiping the "wrong deity". Civilized societies have long evolved above the petty ethno tribalism, and the pitiful concept of a prisonlike entity called a "sovereign nation-state" has no future in the global society of tomorrow. You really seem keen on providing a background justification on some of the attitudes displayed, but I can see no justification for it as it is essentially without hard evidence supporting it and it boils down to a sense of identity, i.e. how one feels like when stating e.g. Croatian is a part of Serbo-Croatian clade, and what further implications does that statement bring upon the individual that thinks of himself as a Croat, and us being sufficiently concerned of their feelings. Why should we care anyway? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan, try and produce an answer with civility. Why do you call Petar II Petrović-Njegoš a murderous thug, where he fought to change Montenegro from a theocracy into a secular state. The call against the Turks in that time, was not uncommon, recollect that Lord Byron was rallying hard for the Greeks in Greek War of Independence, and many of his words were not than benign. Is Lord Byron a murderous thug as well ? Ivan, you do not own the article Croatian language, and your sense of urgency to give a reply and the delivery is really not necessary. Please spare us of your beliefs on history and your views of the future. Please stick to the subject Vodomar (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomar, you said "please stick to the subject". WP:POT. The question is, has been, and will continue to be until you answer it, "What do you want to call the language that comprises the mutually intelligible Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian speech-forms?" --Taivo (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Claptrap ! Read the WP:POT and the meaning of it. I have not breached this guideline. The last question, is that an exam question ? Vodomar (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You asked Ivan to "stick to the subject", yet you continue to sidetrack away from the question of what do you want to call this language? Not a single, solitary Croat has even attempted to answer this question with a name that has any currency in English. Indeed, I have yet to even see a form proposed that is in Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

These are not just "speech-forms". These are four languages. "Serbo-Croatian language" was the political project, and later, a political name for Serbian language. Croatian linguist Ranko Matasović (Štambuk glorifies him) explicitly says that Serbo-Croatian was never materialized in reality, since it never existed Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao. I wrote about this on few talkpages, months ago. Kubura (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we're all repeating ourselves, I'll say it again: you do not seem to understand what "Serbo-Croatian" means in English. It's not a political project, it's a language. It has nothing to do with Yugoslavia. What you're talking about is the Yugoslav bi-standard, but that's not the point under discussion here. Since you and all the other objectors have failed to provide a better name, we're stuck with "Serbo-Croatian". — kwami (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, "speech-form" is a general term to avoid the obvious issue of "language" or "dialect" or "sub-dialect". "English and Malay are two speech-forms" is just as true as "My English and my brother's English are two speech-forms". You are doing exactly what every single other Croat on this page is doing--you have no answer whatsoever to the question we keep asking, so you divert and quibble over the cost of tea in China. Answer the question, "What do you want us to call the language comprising the mutually intelligible Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian speech forms?" --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is maintaining the "Serbo-Croatian" language - No one except... Oh, I know now Wikipedia. Vodomar (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, Vodomar, as usual. There are still many contemporary linguistic works that use "Serbo-Croatian", such as the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (cited above). You continue to sidetrack the issue by asking such questions that have been answered before with reliable sources. What term do you prefer for the language that comprises the mutually intelligible Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian? How many times must this be asked before the Croats come up with an answer? --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No I am not sidestepping the issue, if you want an answer to that would be : Central South Slavic Diasystem and you can really classify all the languages under that one name. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=geh261xgI8sC&pg=PA518&lpg=PA518&dq=weinrich+diasystem&source=bl&ots=DW062gZ5ip&sig=a-zsU_fwYW3iNvlLzGyiJPGrE3s&hl=en&ei=A8mxTPbAA5OuvgObvImwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false All the similarities and the apparent differences can be best described with the term diasystem. Vodomar (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That name has been suggested before, and there are a couple problems with it: (1) it's not WP:COMMONNAME; most English speakers would have no idea what it's supposed to refer to. In fact, it's quite rare; I don't know how many linguists would recognize it. (2) it's linguistically inaccurate, as we've cited. (If SS divides into east & west, w SC in the west, how is it 'central'?). BCMS would be preferable, as at least it's accurate and people would recognize it. — kwami (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy how it is central: Slovene is Western South Slavic, Macedonian East. You can make a disambiguation page on Serbo-Croatian, and the issue has been resolved. Hey things change, I was brought up that Pluto was a planet and now it is not..... Vodomar (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But SC is Western SS. Even if we call it "Central", it would still be Western. That's why the term is deprecated. — kwami (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The best description would be Neo-Štokavian, based on the modified standardised Štokavian, with ijekavian pronounciation. This is the best explanation as this really goes back to the root of the 19th century work of Vuk and Gaj. Serbo-Croatian as standard promoted by linguists and some countries as a way of simplifying and condensing the different languages of the region. The explanation on how the different languages work in a plurocentric way is not the best choice, and it can be better explained through the use of a diasystem as well as using Ausbausprache - Abstandsprache - Dachsprache. Croatian and Serbian are not dialects of Serbo-Croatian, this was a term used by many in the past as common term for the languages without a better alternative. 01:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodomar (talk • contribs)

> The best description would be Neo-Štokavian, based on the modified standardised Štokavian, with ijekavian pronounciation.

Unless you're Slavic dialectologist, this sentence is meaningless. What you describe by this excessively long construct is covered by the term Serbo-Croatian in English language for ~ one and a half century. There is no need to use cumbersome substitutes that require intricate knowledge of an obscure field of South Slavic dialectology. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kubura> Croatian linguist Ranko Matasović (Štambuk glorifies him) explicitly says that Serbo-Croatian was never materialized in reality, since it never existed.

This depends on how you define "language" and the relation of its "existence". What Matasović actually says, is that Serbo-Croatian never existed in a completely uniform way, and that there were always regional variations, which if you call languages were then "different languages" As a "single standard", that it didn't exist. But that doesn't necessarily mean that what was at that time taught as hrvatsko-srpski in Socialist Federal Republic of Croatia and srpsko-hrvatski in the Socialist Fedaral Republic of Serbia were two different languages. Such Serbo-Croatian was something that is in modern linguistics called pluricentric or polycentric standard language, commonly defined as "a language with several national standard variants, which are different in some respects, but not so much that they can be treated as different languages". English (British, American, Australian..), German (of Germany, Switzerland, Austria), Portuguese (of Portugal, Brazil) are all examples of such "pluricentric standard languages". All of them differ in certain respects of vocabulary, grammar, even orthography. These differences are often very extensive, and are much more greater in scope than between B/C/S See for example the article: American and British English differences. So essentially Matasović's answer was "correct", but only in a particular context. Yes the differences exist, and nobody is trying to negate them, but we must explain the situation objectively as it reflects reality and not some idealized version of it. I'm sure that you'd want that modern standard Croatian is based on some koineized Ča+Kaj+Što mixture, but it's not. It's based on Eastern Herzegovinian dialect drawing on the heritage of Communist Yugoslav policy of ethnolinguistic unification and the codification work of the late 19th century Illyrians and Vukovians. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) But "Neo-Shtokavian" is still not accurate since we are not just talking about the standard forms, but about the whole range of mutually intelligible non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. That is the label that we're looking for here. We all know what "Serbo-Croatian" means when it refers specifically to the literary standards of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, but we're looking for some unifying term for that range of spoken forms that are demonstrably West South Slavic, but not Slovenian, which is a separate branch of West South Slavic. --Taivo (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that this Čakavian/Kajkavian/Štokavian dialects spoken on this "central" area are not all mutually intelligible. "Pure" Čakavian speaker from e.g. Krk and Kajkavian speaker from Bednja don't understand a word of each other. They can only communicate through literary standard that they've been taught in schools and can read/hear in the media. Slovenian dialects are also internally quite divergent and some of them are not mutually intelligible (or so I've heard). Unless one has to resort to obscure and cumbersome substitutes, Serbo-Croatian doesn't have much alternative in any of its ambiguous meanings. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shtokavian/Štokavian

In this article, both Shtokavian and Štokavian are used. Similarly Chakavian and Čakavian are also both used. The two infoboxes use one each. Is there one which is preferable to use? It's probably best to use one, with the other version appearing in brackets after first use. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any decision has been made on that. It's the diacritic debate, which seems unending. But since the articles are currently at the digraph spelling, it's probably better to use that here. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwami's Wording

This is not the wording suggested by Kwami. It is only a thinly-disguised version of the prevailing Croat POV. This is Kwami's wording:

Croatian ([hrvatski] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the language of the Croatian people. It is spoken in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and neighbouring countries, as well as by the Croatian diaspora worldwide. The literary and standard language is based on the central dialect of Serbo-Croatian, Shtokavian, and more specifically on the Eastern Herzegovinian subdialect, which also forms the basis of the official standards of Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. Of the other Serbo-Croatian dialects, two, Chakavian and Kajkavian, are spoken exclusively by Croats, and there are a few Croatian speakers of a third, Torlakian; all dialects are called Croatian when spoken by Croats. More generally, these four dialects, and likewise the four national standards, are commonly subsumed under the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, though this term is controversial because it reminds many Croats of the Serbian dominance of Yugoslavia, and paraphrases such as "Bosnian-Croatian-(Montenegrin-)Serbian" and "Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/(Montenegrin)" are therefore sometimes used instead, especially in diplomatic circles.

--Taivo (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of judging whether a consensus is forming or not, I would support Kwami's wording (not Joy's version of it). --Taivo (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm happy with the version that Chipmunk came up with. Some of the wording's smoother. It's good to have other authors. — kwami (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(Where is the version that Chipmunk came up with? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

In the article itself. — kwami (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

thinly-disguised version of the prevailing Croat POV - you are forgetting WP:AGF, it's really impolite, please don't do that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you "linguists" be honest enough to explain to us "nationalists" just one thing? How can Croatian language be based on "Serbo-Croatian" when there was no "Serbo-Croatian" before 1954?--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what "Serbo-Croatian" means in English.

Serbo-Croatian was the name of the official language of the republic back in, what, 1928? It had been agreed upon as the literary standard of the Serbs and Croats in 1850. But that's the standard language, and we're not talking about the standard language here. Croatian isn't "based" on SC, it simply is SC as spoken by Croats. Serbs and Croats are not distinguished by language, but by religion and history. They share a common language, for which the most common name in English is SC. Lingistically, the division is between Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian, not Croatian and Serbian. Now, call that common language whatever you want: Naški, Illyrian, Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian, Central South Slavic, whatever. The point is that Croatian and Serbian are not separate branches of South Slavic coordinate with Slovenian; rather, SS divides into Slovenian dialects and Croatian+Serbian dialects. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Which republic in 1928? Which Croats and which Serbs in 1850? And who are you to teach us which language we speak? Croats and Serbs are speaking different languages, which communists attempted to mix in 1954. And know what? They failed; Croats and Serbs are still speaking different languages.--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you purposefully misunderstanding me? If you are not going to converse in good faith, then please don't waste my time asking false questions. You asked for an explanation, and I gave it. Unless you can refute my explanation using reliable sources, there is no point in continuing. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you two simple questions, and now you don't want to answer. Is that because you know that your "explanations" are nothing more than lies?--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you made paranoid accusations that I'm trying to teach you which language to speak, and even now you're accusing me of lies. However, on the chance that there's an honest question behind all the bluster, I'll try again.

Sorry, it was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and in 1918 rather than 1928, which was the date it was dissolved.

As for "which Croats", evidently just about all of them. The government in Zagreb uses the standard literary language established by Gaj in 1850, practically the same standard as is used in Belgrade and Sarajevo. There may be Croats who are attempting to revive Chakavian as a "pure" Croatian language, but somehow I doubt there are very many of them.

Regardless, there is a mutually intelligible language which Croats call "Croatian" and Serbs call "Serbian". The common name in English for this language is "Serbo-Croatian", which has nothing to do with Communists in 1954. If you deny that there is such a language, then your opinion is demonstrably false. However, if you merely object to the name "Serbo-Croatian", then we can discuss which name would be better. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Jack Sparrow 3, you are ignoring the issue. As Kwami has stated eloquently, the division of non-Slovenian West South Slavic is not between Croatian and Serbian, but between Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. Shotkavian is divided into literary Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian. To ignore this is to ignore all linguistic science. But all these dialects are mutually intelligible. If you are a native speaker of Croatian, you will have no problem understanding any speaker of Bosnian or Serbian. If you claim you can't it's only because you don't want to and not because you are unable. You have not provided a single, solitary reliable source to contradict the outline that Kwami and I have given here. Indeed, you will be unable to. That common non-Slovenian West South Slavic language is most commonly called Serbo-Croatian in English, although Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian is coming into use. You have no proof otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Taivo, I don't think the dialects are mutually intelligible, at least not in their pure form (which is rare today), or at least not much. But that could only mean that Croatian is not a single language; standard Serbian and Croatian would still be mutually intelligible. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I gave the sources to Ivan few sections "upper". "SC" had't been agreed as the literary standard in 1850. The official language in Croatia in 19th century was Croatian since 1847. It was one of offical languages in Austria-Hungary guaranteed by Croatian-Hungarian Agreement. Croatian has been standardized and then became the offcial language in Croatia. 1850 some linguists argued for "Serbocroatian" but it has never been nore than arguing until 1954. --Flopy (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the standard they agreed on, Eastern Herzegovinian, is the official language in Zagreb today, despite not being the native language of that city, so somewhere along the line Croatia accepted it, and continues to accept it. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem for your argument and sources, Flopy, is that usage in the 19th century doesn't really matter when it comes to common English usage. The common literary language of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia is called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. There is some movement toward calling it "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian" in contemporary usage, but it is still uncommon. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To say that "1850 some linguists argued for "Serbocroatian" but it has never been nore that." is a gross understatement. Flopy I'm afraid you're spreading some serious disinfo. Virtually all of the 19th century Croatian intellectuals opted for Serbo-Croatian in one way or the other. The original "vision" by Illyrians was to mix all of the dialects into one giant hodgepodge, but that of course never worked. There was even a fraction of Croats who slavishly followed the teachings of Vuk Karadžić and which called themselves vukovci ("Vukovians"). They were the most influential of all the competing literary schools. The foundations laid back then by linguists such as Tomislav Maretić and Ivan Broz are valid to this day. Flopy is arguing on the basis what some piece of paper had written in it by a bunch of idle landowners back in the days when 95% of the population (peasants) were illiterate, having zero practical relevance to the future of what is today called "standard Croatian". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To ignore the fact that Croatian and Serbian are two different languages is like believing that the Earth is hollow. I am a native speaker of Croatian language, and I have problems with understanding most of the Serbian language, cause Croats and Serbs aren't speaking the same language. And that fairy tales about Serbo-Croatian in the 19th century you can tell to small children, but not to me, kwami.--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My parents can hardly understand British films, but that doesn't mean that there is no such language as "English".

Do you have problems understanding old people in Split? Does that mean that their dialect and yours are not the same language?

I don't need to convince you, Jack, I only need reliable sources to support my argument. That's what WP is based on: Sources, not your or my opinion. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, called or not, that has to to with propaganda, after almost 50 years of forcing "Serbocroatian" in former Yugoslavia. It has very much to do with politic. Your last sentence acknowledged it is possibile to change that allegedly "common name" in English and it has been changed at least for the EU. Croatia is very close to became the member of the EU and then Croatian will be one of the offical languages in the EU, not "SC". Isn't strange the official language is Croatian, but the "common name" in English is "SC". I don't see any logic here. --Flopy (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

English use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" predates Yugoslavia. Morfill, Slavic Lit: "the extent of the territory over which Serbo-Croatian and its dialects are spoken". That was in 1883.

Please read WP:Crystal ball. In any case, the EU has indicated that they are not willing to accept Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin as four new official languages of the union, but consider them to be a single language. God knows what they'll call it. If they call it "Croatian", as you seem to think, and other countries follow suit, then fine, we'll say that Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins speak "Croatian", we'll rename the SC article "Croatian language", and we'll rename this article "Croatian Croatian", and we'll rename the Serbian language article "Serbian Croatian". Or perhaps they'll call it "Shtokavian", in which case we'll change the Croatia article to say that the country is trilingual. But again, no crystal balls allowed when writing an article, so for now we're stuck with our existing sources. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, my source is here. They say they are very close but make a clear distinction. So, please, don't be sarcastic. --Flopy (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

That ref actually supports my argument in its discussion of Bosnian: Nowadays Bosnian [bosanski jezik] is considered to be one of the standard written versions of the Central South Slavic diasystem that was formerly known as Serbo-Croatian. From a linguistic point of view it can be considered as an Ausbau-variant of Serbo-Croatian that acquired its status as a national standard language after the collapse of Yugoslavia. That's exactly what we've been saying. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

formerly known as Serbo-Croatian It means not anymore. Why they separated Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian if that is one language? They could write "Serbocroatian" and the story is finished. But, they didn't. That indicates that in the EU it will be no "Serbocroatian" then Croatian, Bosnian and serbian as three separate languauges. --Flopy (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi sources say that Germans are "superior race", and we all know how reliable that sources are. But those sources were the basis for all German science between the First and the Second World War.

And there is a small, but very important difference between English and "Serbo-Croatian". English has naturally evolved during the course of history and "Serbo-Croatian" was constructed in 1954.--Jack Sparrow 3 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's law strikes again. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue of propaganda is irrelevant here. All that is relevant is the question of what is common English usage. That common English usage is "Serbo-Croatian" and is based on reliable sources. The English of waterfront Liverpool or rural Ulster is hardly intelligible to someone from California, yet no one disputes that they all constitute "English". Jack Sparrow may refuse to understand a Serb who lives across the street from him, but that doesn't change the linguistic reality. All our reliable sources state that these speech-forms are largely mutually intelligible. (There are some questions, apparently, about Kajkavian, but standard Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are clearly a single language.) And "Serbo-Croatian" wasn't "constructed". It was the standardization of the Shtokavian dialect. --Taivo (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Kajkavian is a bit like Scots.

Standard SC was the stand'n of Shtokavian. But SC also means the lang of all Serbs and Croats, not just the standard, and is used that way in many of our sources. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above the EU are separating Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian. The users here even don't speak or undesteand Croatian but they are claiming they now better as the native speaker. I don't count Štambuk, because he has his own private war against "Croatian nationalists". But, Kwami, Taivo how would you react if I would teach you about your native language English. But, no, we are all deluded nationalists, you know better as native speaker. Howewer, in the article they are sections that support the argumentation that "SC" was a forced political project: The single most important effort by ruling Yugoslav Communist elites to erase the "differences" between Croatian and Serbian – and in practice impose Serbian Ekavian language, written in Latin script, as the "official" language of Yugoslavia – was the so-called "Novi Sad Agreement". Twenty five Serbian, Croatian, and Montenegrin philologists came together in 1954 to sign the Agreement. A common Serbo-Croatian or "Croato-Serbian" orthography was compiled in 1960 in an atmosphere of state repression and fear. There were 18 Serbs and 7 Croats in Novi Sad. The "Agreement" was seen by the Croats as a defeat for the Croatian cultural heritage. According to the eminent Croatian linguist Ljudevit Jonke, it was imposed on the Croats. The conclusions were formulated according to goals which had been set in advance, and discussion had no role whatsoever. In the more than a decade that followed, the principles of the Novi Sad Agreement were put into practice.

Actually, very good written. It also seems to be that discussion has no role here (I agree with the IP "down"). How sadly, but it doesn't change the realitiy: there is no "Serbocroatian". --Flopy (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Flopy, that description by Jonke smacks of desperation from the Croatian side. Basically he's saying something along the lines that even though Croats also signed the Novi Sad Agreement, they didn't really mean it (or that those dastardly Serbs were behind the whole thing). The Croats are willing to discredit or discount the signatures of linguists belonging to their ethnic group in order to satisfy their national ego that they are not Serbs and so reduce everything into a binary distinction between being Serbian or non-Serbian. Oh pity the poor Croats. Why should non-Croats assume the emotional baggage of Croats? By the way, this self-victimizing is eerily similar to nationalist Serbian claims that the world should listen uncritically to the Serbs because they were motivated by altruism to keep Yugoslavia together. Puh-leeze. These sociolinguistic aspects are necessary in gaining insight into Balkan mentalities but do comparatively little in explaining how the standard languages are mutually intelligible or describing the characteristics of the Eastern Herzegovinian sub-dialect which forms the basis of modern standard Croatian. Vput (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This message is totally out. How do you know what did Jonke mean? Have you been there? This is the fact: the "SC" was forced. And the good thing is: it's in the article. It's not about "emotional baggage" then about the ignorance and unfamiliarity with facts. You know better than me and other native speaker about my language and my history. That is your message all the time. --Flopy (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...and why should we be so quick to believe Jonke's assertion? Is it because his assertion lines up well with the Croatian nationalist justification that Serbo-Croatian never existed or that the Croats were innocent in participating in something that has turned out to contradict a certain strand in the Croatian national consciousness? If we are completely at liberty to believe anyone's judgement at face value without deeper analysis, then just as you insist that it'd be justifiable to believe Jonke's claim of the Croats being forced to sign Novi Sad, then nationalist Serbs would be perfectly justified in adhering to Vuk Karadžić's flawed reasoning that anyone who speaks a Shtokavian dialect is a Serb just like him, all because he has said so. Think harder and try again, Flopy. Vput (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All the time the word "nationalist". It seems to be your main argument. That is disparagingly. You still didn't answer my question: how would you react if I would teach you about English (if that is your native language) claiming I know better than you and then calling you "nationalist" if you disagree with me? That is the problem in this discussion. --Flopy (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Flopy, the problem in this discussion is that you and the other "nationalists" continually throw out the charge of "non-speaker" to anyone who disagrees with your personal assessment of your language. That is just as much of a disparaging comment as you perceive "nationalist" to be. Wikipedia does not run on either emotion or personal assessment. It runs on reliable sources and the priority in the English Wikipedia is for sources in English. Since Wikipedia does not rely on the personal assessments of native speakers, it doesn't matter one whit whether an editor speaks the language or not. All that matters is whether an editor can find, read and weigh reliable sources. Speaking the language can be an advantage in weighing sources, but it is no greater an advantage than a knowledge of linguistics and an understanding of what terms like "mutual intelligibility" actually mean. In this case, the mass of reliable sources cited many times in this discussion say 1) Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are standard forms of a single dialect--Shtokavian; 2) they share a very high degree of mutual intelligibility; 3) the most common English name for the language of which Shtokavian is a member is "Serbo-Croatian" and includes Kajkavian and Chakavian in many accounts. No amount of Croatian hand-wringing can remove these reliable sources or deny that these facts are found in those reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Flopy, to answer your question about that hypothetical situation: NO, it would not necessarily be a problem. My being a native speaker of English does not make me the ultimate authority about English as a linguistic topic. In fact if you were to ask some other native-speakers of English about the relationship of English to other languages they would insist that English is genetically NOT a Germanic language but a Romance one because of the high proportion of Latinate words in English. There are studies on English published by scholars who are non-native (but fluent) users of English and I would be an idiot or a top-notch English-nationalist to dismiss their findings solely because their identity as non-native users disqualifies from analyzing, studying or making observations about my native language (your nationalistic reasoning and discounting of scholars who don't belong to the relevant speech-community would insinuate that you think that native Croats who study English philology at the University of Zagreb are wasting their time by studying their chosen field because they are not native-speakers of English and won't be able to make a meaningful contribution to the field).

By the same token, scholars such as Wayles Browne, Robert Greenberg, Celia Hawkesworth, Morton Benson, Ralph Bogert and Thomas Magner have specialized on various topics in BCMS/SC and none of these people are considered unworthy of discussing BCMS/SC even though NONE of them is a native speaker of BCMS/SC. The word is "nationalist" (and I don't throw it around indiscriminately as you'd like to believe) because indeed that is the central concept that gives rise to the sociolinguistic observation why Serbo-Croatian does not exist. Vput (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Flopy, I meet non-native English speakers who know English better than I do all the time. They know its history better, its literature, its dialectical variation, its grammar; hell, when I can't spell a word, I look for a fluent ESL speaker because I know that other native speakers can't spell either. I've also had arguments with native speakers who insist that English is a Romance language, that they can prove by all of the cognates English and Spanish share, and they think I must be an idiot to think it's closer to German. Native speakers are good for a few obvious things: a native accent (if they haven't been away from the country for too long) and native intuition on idioms, semantic nuance, and which officially ungrammatical things are really okay. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, good to know that opiniom. This summer I met some Americans and we were talking about language. As you know better than me English has a lot of words Latin origin (defence, century and many more) but they claimed the Latin has been influenced by English and not the opposite! It was unimaginably for them that the world language number 1 could be influenced by some other language. It's the true, I argued with them and became the answer "you don't know abotu my native language better than me". But, I am happy to read it's not the general opinion of native English speaker at least not of academics (this "my" Americans were not academics). But OK, I am out of subject now;) Vput I would like to read also your opinion about this. --Flopy (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. I like to think that such people are a minority, at least among Americans traveling abroad, but our educational system is embarrassingly provincial. (It's amazing how many Americans can't find Mexico on a map.) I remember the astonishment of one classmate in college when the prof noted different translations of the Bible: she'd just assumed that the Bible had been written in English, and presumably that Moses & Jesus spoke English as well. Not that she was stupid, she'd simply never been exposed to the concept. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proportion

This talk page has become bloated out of proportion. Trying to catch up on the latest developments, I just wasted an hour only to find out that there aren't any. Some discussions are futile and not worth getting entangled in, and this is certainly one of them. (It reminded me of the both end- and fruitless grind about John Hunyadi's ethnic origins.) What remains to be done is mainspace maintenance. Trigaranus (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban notice

For your information: the aggressive anonymous user who was last posting from 78.3.27.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been topic-banned from this page and all related topics. Any edit that is recognisably by the same person (from new IPs or sock accounts) can be reverted on sight, without regard to 3RR or other limitations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Language tree

The language tree was corrected to reflect the reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=hrv Vodomar (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And it was corrected back, per the discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, which you have ignored. — kwami (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BS ! The reference http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hbs and reference http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=hrv do not support the claim for serbo-croatian, the only one left is David Dalby, Linguasphere (1999/2000, Linguasphere Observatory), pg. 445, 53-AAA-g, "Srpski+Hrvatski, Serbo-Croatian". So in this case it is FALSE referencing. Vodomar (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

" In brief, on purely linguistic grounds, two speech system are considered to be a dialects of the same languag if they are (predominantly) mutually intelligible. This makes Cockney and Scouse dialects of English,..... On the other hand, purely linguistic considerations can be 'outranked' by sociopolitical criteria, so that we can encounter speech systems which are mutually intelligible, but which have nonetheless been designated as separate languages. A well-recognised example is the status of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, which are counted as separate languages despite the fact that members of the community can understand each other... A more recent example is Serbo-Croatian, formerly widely used as a language name to encompass a set of varieties used in former Yugoslavia, ... now largely replaced by names Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" David Crystal "Language Death", Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 11, 12 . Vodomar (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Speakers of the Scandanavian languages can't understand eachother "just like that". While they can make out parts of what speakers of the other languages are saying, they have considerable difficulty, especially Swedes trying to understand Danish, and will miss (i.e. cannot understand) a more or less considerable amount of what was said. Read The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages, a study that has quantified this a bit. This is in stark contrast with speakers of the Serbo-Croatian standards, who will not even always notice that the other is speaking in a different standard. Therefore any such comparison is flawed. --JorisvS (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Gillian Scotland

Local dialects have a lower status than standard languages. Do you think they deserve to be protected as actively as, say, Welsh or Gaelic?"

"David Crystal (Guest Speaker)

I do. The distinction between language and dialect is, after all, somewhat arbitrary. Ten years ago, in former Yugoslavia, people spoke dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Today, Serbian and Croatian are being pursued as different languages - and Bosnian, too. Some countries do actively support their dialects - in the UK, for example, we have the Yorkshire Dialect Society."

see: http://wordsmith.org/chat/dc.html . David Crystal is a well known linguist. Vodomar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

I assume you're trying to make a point, but you aren't saying anything we don't already know, and it isn't particularly relevant for your argument, unless I've misunderstood what your argument is. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I also assuming that you are not tyring to accept the point that was made by David Crystal, you can't shoehorn Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrian in the same box anymore, as it is not considered valid anymore the example given were the Scandinavian languages. Whatever argument is put in front of you is disregarded, because you consider your references better than anyone else can bring up. Vodomar (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sources can not be taken in a selective manner. If a source (http://www.ethnologue.com/) is acceptable for the vast majority of articles, then it should be the case with the article on the Croatian language. --Roberta F. (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And according to Ethnologue, Croatian is Serbo-Croatian. Vodomar didn't like it, so we used a different ref. If you wish to put the Ethnologue ref back in, be my guest: it supports the existing version of the article. — kwami (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

{outdent}
The most obvious fact is that no one uses Taivo's paradigm of "non-Slovene Western South Slavic". This would mean that the Slovene language is its own category. Who would categorize it that way? Making a category for only one language?! Science has progressed, and no longer describes the language as "jugoslavjansko narječje" which would contain one called "slovensko-hrvatsko".

Ethnologue is used in the article, but partially, this is not acceptable. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=374-16 - Western South Slavic is not divided into two "subgroups" (two "macrolanguages").

If our learned friends would explain why the Slovene language should be separated? Maybe some dialectology would answer that? If the Slovene language can be considered one "macrolanguage" of Slovene dialects, then the Slovene language is a diasystem. Then, most surely, the Croatian language is a language based on three dialects (there are even more than three, that is also a product of "categorization"), thus a diasystem of its own.

Where ever I looked, the basic purpose is to count languages and describe them properly. Serbian is not based on the same dialect basis as other Western South Slavic languages.

The "problem" is much discontinued, and we cannot link jugoslavjansko narječje with the artificial language produced in 1954/1960 (which was never before made with such "substance" - e.g. with such mixture of words). -- Ali Pasha (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OWN

kwami, you do not own the articles Croatian language and Serbo-Croatian language. The references in Croatian Language as per the talk page (ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ ) should be removed as Serbo-Croatian is not in part of the branch to the Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian is listed as a macrolanguage. The references to ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ will be removed. The only one left will be the one supporting the argument for Serbo-Croatian. If this is reverted, then your are engaging in Wikipedia:OWN and promoting something that ISO and http://www.ethnologue.com/ do not support. Have a nice day. Vodomar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Please read WP:Dick. I have no problem with you improving the refs, only with you deleting factual information you don't like. — kwami (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The one who really needs to be educated in not being a WP:Dick is yourself talk. Vodomar (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An accusation of owning the article is an assumption of bad faith, generally considered impolite. Whether one needs to read WP:DICK or not, insulting the person you should be trying to convince won't get you anywhere. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no assumption of bad faith, when the evidence is plentiful. Vodomar (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is: !RR protection of the article, the constant reversions by Kwamikagami, considering other people's references as inferior even if in the vast majorirty of artiles the references are used. Disregarding other peoples opinion, and placing more value on his own then others. Look at the revision history and look at the chat history for this article, the tone the mannor.... The article can not be a one man's vission of the truth. Vodomar (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You were editing in good faith, for a while. Until you didn't get what you wanted. But acting in good faith is still the best way to get there. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Vodomar. Kwamikagami is behaving in a dicatatorial manner, inventing consensus where it does not exist. He is using a language of hate and intimidation against other contributors that do not share his views. This isn't the only article where Kwamikagami has shown intolerance. He assumed "a consensus" for instance in the case of the article Croatian grammar. Kwamikagami with his actions: placing articles under special protection, 1RR, constant reversions is in essence an abuse of administrator priviledges. --Roberta F. (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If I've done anything inappropriate, take it to WP:ANI. I'd be curious as to what it is. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you don't have the basic knowledge about this topic. Your edit on Commons shows that [51]. This is assuming bad faith. That map is like Brozović's and Šimunović's work about that topic. Distribution of dialects before migrations. Kubura (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The preponderence of the evidence supports the use of Serbo-Croatian as the name of the language that is non-Slovenian Western South Slavic. We have presented it to you in abundance over and over and over again, but you refuse to accept the scientific evidence because it does not match your nationalistic POVs, Vodomar, Roberta F., and Kubura. You have zero evidence to say that Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are not national variants of a single dialect of a single language that is called "Serbo-Croatian" in English. You have completely misread Crystal and misinterpreted it through your own blinders. We have provided multiple scientific, linguistic reliable sources to prove it to you, but you refuse to acknowledge any of them. Indeed, you rely solely on Ethnologue and Crystal in opposition to the many, many sources that we have cited showing Serbo-Croatian as the cover term for the single language that we're discussing here. This article isn't owned by anyone, but you Croatians seek to WP:OWN it by continually reverting the accurate scientific text to your own nationalistic skewed version of reality. Vodomar, Roberta K., Kubura, meet the pot. --Taivo (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Many, many sources" that have taken which materials as source? Taivo, start to behave nicer. You're denigrating the opponents (with "nationalistic"); that's violating of WP:ETIQ and WP:ATTACK. Also, Taivo, stop hounding me. Read WP:HOUND. Whenever and wherever I appear, you appear right after me. Especially you have a history of violation of WP:TALKNO, impersonating me. Have in mind that you also have your own personal POV that you're trying to impose here. Kubura (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on Kwami. I edit in good faith, I will always go with a good argument if it is substantiated well. There are differing opinions on this subject and they should be taken into consideration. What is the problem with going with ethnologue's definition of the language. It does not make the article any worse. Yes the Serbo-Croatian can be mentioned in the article and it did have an influence on the language, but it is not a defining one. There were many arguments raised about this through the talk pages of this article, if we are here to build consensus lets build it and not be destructive. Vodomar (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You still don't understand the nature of the Ethnologue source, Vodomar. Ethnologue's editors are not specialists, they are generalists and the majority of them are Uto-Aztecan, Mayan, Arawakan, Cariban, Papuan or Austronesian specialists just pushing paper to maintain the sections on languages that they don't specialize in. Someone wrote to them and complained about "Serbo-Croatian" and without really taking a survey of the literature, they basically said, "OK", made up the term "macrolanguage" for Serbo-Croatian, and Voila!--problem solved :p All the Slavic specialists place Croatian firmly as a part of Serbo-Croatian. Crystal is also not a specialist. The Slavicists all use "Serbo-Croatian" as a node of Western South Slavic. We've provided you with multiple sources showing this. Ethnologue is useful as a fall-back position if there is not specialist literature. But in the presence of specialist literature, then we pass on using Ethnologue. This is the general practice in language articles throughout Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Clap trap !!! Wow now you are claiming nationlaism and now placing a bunch of users in the pot, great just point the finger on the other side and start claiming some kind of a bias is nothing but an excercise in logical fallacy and ad hominem. Vodomar (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tavio, so Wikipedia is the only true source of knowledge and the only source of truth. I can really see where this is going Vodomar (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you refuse to accept any scientific linguistic references that don't agree with your POV. Kwami and I have presented multiple reliable references, but you just ignore them and rely solely on two sources written by generalists that partially fit your POV. I don't know what else to call it when you and the others willfully disregard scientific evidence. What do you want to call the blinders that you and Roberta F. and Kubura are wearing? --Taivo (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Vodomar, the multiple reliable sources that Kwami and I have cited here are the basis of our comments. You just choose to ignore the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Ethnologue is a usefull fallback where is suits you, the same with referencing if it does not agree with your POV this is then disregarded and rubbished. To reach a consensus it is a two way street, not a one way express highway which only drives semitrailers with in your own POV written all over it. Vodomar (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami has shown WP:OWN on other articles too. His possessive behaviour towards the articles resulted as vandalisms, since he was blatantly reverting to his version, e.g. here he impoverished the article about South Slavic languages. He deleted the whole referenced sections. He deleted the line about Kajkavian Ikavians, he deleted the info about New and Old Shtokavian accentuation. His version is full of nonexisting terms (e.g., he deleted "East" from "East Herzegovina" - so which one is that "Herzegovina dialect"?; e.g. he invented "ikavian subdialect of Štokavian"...). Where were his sources for those deletions and where were sources for his inventions (WP:OR) ? Kubura (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, we're wasting our time. These people have no interest in providing sources or improving the article. You can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to listen. I had hopes for Vodomar, but he's stopped trying. Until someone makes an honest effort, we're simply filling the page with clutter. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise ! Vodomar (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Divided opinions =

The best option for the definition of the language is to say that there are differing opinions on this subject. This is in the spirit of wikipedia there is no right and there is no wrong. Vodomar (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is not acceptable, Vodomar. You imply that there is some kind of even split of linguists on the matter. There isn't. The linguistic world is virtually uniform in calling the non-Slovenian Western South Slavic dialects "Serbo-Croatian". You have no scientifically sound sources to rely on for the English terminology. I consider that change to be 2RR for you today, Vodomar. Please self-revert. --Taivo (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Literature

Here's some literature:

• Miro Kačić (with Ljiljana Šarić; translated by Lelija Sočanac): Croatian and Serbian : delusions and distortions, Novi most, Zagreb, 1997., ISBN: 953-6602-00-8
• Stjepan Babić: Hrvatski jučer i danas, 1995.
• Stjepan Babić: Hrvanja hrvatskoga : hrvatski u koštacu sa srpskim i u klinču s engleskim, 2004.
• Stjepan Babić, Božidar Finka, Milan Moguš: Hrvatski pravopis, (several editions)
  
• Vladimir Brodnjak: Razlikovni rječnik između hrvatskog i srpskog jezika, Školske novine/Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada, Zagreb, 1992.
• Dalibor Brozović_ Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008. (originally published in 1987., in proceedings Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu), ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0
• (ed. Ante Selak): Taj hrvatski, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1992., ISBN 86-7457-084-4
• Ranko Matasović: [52] Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao (very informative interview)
• Radoslav Katičić: [53] Srpski jezik nije štokavski (very informative interview)
• Radoslav Katičić: [54] Kroatologija obuhvaća kulturu kao cjelinu (very informative interview)
• many interesting articles in scientific magazine Jezik (I'll add them here later)

There's more. Kubura (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, Kubura, it's all Croatian nationalist literature and not neutral in this regard at all. In other words, it's not of any real value to determine what the language is called in English, which is all that matters here. You have no English sources beyond stretching Ethnologue to say what it doesn't. You think that Ethnologue is the best source in the world when it matches your POV, but ignore it and call it unreliable when it doesn't. Let's put it this way, Ethnologue = 1 source versus the dozen or so sources which Kwami and I have provided. So 1 versus 12? Ethnologue is edited by non-Slavicists, while the 12 are written by Slavicists. You are blinded by your POV and unable to see scientific sources. I agree with Kwami, this is pointless. You have no interest in a referenced scientifically-sound encyclopedia. Please return to the Croatian Wikipedia where you can be back with your own kind. --Taivo (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)