Talk:Chakavian

Chakavian is a dialect of Croatian language

Chakavian is a dialect of Croatian language and was a standard Croatian language dialect throughout history. Serbo-Croatian is a language construct based on Shtokavian dialect.

Chakavian dialect is taught in Croatian schools trough some major works like Judita (1521.), Planine (1536.), Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje (1568.). and is used in modern Croatian literature and film. No other language includes or use Chakavian dialect.

Be so kind and point to a scientific consensus talk where it was allegedly agreed that Chakavian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.29.68 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Č and Ć

I think that it would be worth mentioning that in chakavian dialect Č and Ć are noticeably different sounds, while in standard Croatian there's virtually no difference, they both sound like Č.

Also chakavian doesn't have Lj, which is replaced with J(or in some cases L).

Martin 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not realy. In Chakavian dialect Ć is more like T' (soft Tj), more softer than standard. In Standard Croatian there exists a difference between Č and Ć, although that difference is not heard if it is spoken by speakers of Kajkavian dialect (people from Northwest Croatia)... --Čeha (razgovor) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My edit

I've removed some unreferenced parts, that were nigh-on- original research. Kubura (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maps

The maps are a bit wrong. Nobody speaks Chakavian around Split, and in Split itself only older folks in the very city center. In the islands it s abit more common, but rare nontheless. People usually don't say "cha" but "shta?" (i.e. "šta?"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Chakavian dialect is exclusive Croatian dialect

1. Chakavian dialect (Čakavian) is exclusive Croatian dialect or dialect of Croatian language (spoeake Croats). Chakavian is not Serbian or Serbo-Croatian dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

True, Chakavian is spoken by Croats, not Serbs. But there is no Croatian language in any coherent sense that would include Chakavian, because anything that would include Chakavian and Shtokavian would have to include all of Shtokavian and thus Serbian as well as Croatian. Ethnically, one can say that Chakavian is a dialect of Croatian, but linguistically, dialectologically, it's a dialect of Serbo-Croatian.

As for the map, I've asked if it might be more accurate than our current map. If it is, we can use it instead, though we would have to change it from "Croatian" to "Serbo-Croatian", as it includes both Croatian and Serbian. — kwami (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

1.Kajkavian, Čakavian and West stokavian they are dialects of Croatian language. Croatian language is stylized to the west stokavian style, but it includes all the Croatian dialect.

2. All Croatian dialects differ from the Serbian dialects.

3. I do not understand your view, how can one classify a dialect unintelligible to Serbs in Serbian dialects. This is madness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

4. See this map, on it you can very accurately determine what the Croatian dialect or dialects of Croatian language, as a Serbian dialect or dialects Serbijan language.

Three Croatian dialects and two dialects of Serbian

See:

• The Croatian language is based on Western-Stokavian dialect, participate in building standards and the other two dialects; Kajkavian and Chakavian.
• Serbian language is based on East-Stokavian dialect, participate in building standards and Torlakian dialects.

That is a map of dialects in the 15th century when there where no Croatian or Serbian peoples, which were created only in the 19th century. Today, there is no such thing as "Western Štokavian" or "Eastern Štokavian", and the dialectal map is significantly different. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Today's picture has not remained exactly the same, the differences were reduced but not disappeared.

Is logic purely Croatian dialect called Serbian ?

How do you explain the numerous differences between the Serbian language and the Croatian language ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Čakavian is unintelligible to speakers of standard Croatian. How can you classify a dialect unintelligible to Croats as a Croatian dialect?

We don't classify it as a dialect of Serbian. Where did anyone ever say that it was?

Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian are perfectly intelligible. The differences are mostly due to different sources of borrowing of technical vocabulary. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can you enumerate those present-day differences of interest between "Western" and "Eastern" Štokavian? Which of those two forms is spoken by the Bosnian Serbs of Republika Srpska, as well as Croatian Serbs? You don't know the answer to this question do you. You're just repeating mindlessly some mantra of "differences" that you read on some nationalist webpage, which you neither understand nor it has anything to do with reality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What kind of policy you run here ?

Your views here are political and not real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Croatian dialects are not Serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you get yourself acquainted with linguistics before meddling with things that relate to languages or dialects. I'm aware that the temptation to consider yourself an expert is high being that everyone *speaks* a language and *communicates* in one, but I assure you, having an emotional response to something that's written *doesn't make you an expert*. Calling Kajkavian, Čakavian and Štokavian dialects "Serbo-Croatian" is reasonable and isn't considered a fringe opinion (I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Kajkavian and Čakavian aren't spoken by non-Croatians but unless the effort is made to standardize them and turn them into independent languages, putting them into the Serbo-Croatian dialect continuum doesn't equate to "killing a culture", and certainly no more than the practice of subjugating those same dialects in Croatia). Tty29a (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Chakavian speaking Slovenes or chakavian speaking Slovenian citizens claiming to be ethnical Slovenes

Ther are chakavian speaking Slovenes or chakavian speaking Slovenian citizens claiming to be ethnical Slovenes south of Podgrad (Golac, Polane, Starod), community Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenia.

http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=2291

http://www.primorske.si/Primorska/Srednja-Primorska/Cica-ni-prevarija-nidan-hudic!.aspx

80.109.224.73 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but does that factoid merit inclusion? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We have an 'ethnicity' field for that. Question: does this change the speaker population? — kwami (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Chakavian is scientifically considered a language of its own, not a dialect of serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian

Within the Croatian linguistic circles there is an ongoing dispute whether Chakavian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian or a fully-fledged language of its own, external linguistics free from political influences in general agree it is a separate language. The pure form of Chakavian though has no mutual intelligibility with Shtokavian, on which Croatia's standard language is based. Moreover, even many notable Croatian linguists consider Chakavian to be a language in its own right, with its own established dialects and documented literature.]]. It is the first written form of Croatian in history and it has a very rich literature from the middle-ages until today (see reference).

There is a common agreement among international linguists that Chakavian does not belong to the Shtokavian group of dialects as Serbo-Croatian does, but that it is an isolated language with which it partly shares a vocabulary. Linguist Josip Silić is the most famous linguist in Croatia and one of the main creators of the standardisation of Croatian (Shtokavian) language, and he regards Chakavian as a language of its own, having different morphology, syntax and phonology from the official Croatian language. Contrary to the other political "dialect" of Croatian (Kajkavian), Chakavian is politically weaker because there are less associations that lobby for it in Zagreb. Active attempts are anyway being made by organizations to widen its recognition and status within the country, it takes time but it's getting there.

We are speaking of a thesis that is popular in Croatia now and best sellers like Jezik i Nacionalizam by Prof. Kordic advocate it and popularize it also for non-linguists. Please read my references/sources and see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marintu (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

First, your references are entirely Croation linguists. That is a serious problem because Croatian linguists are not neutral in general. This is why we wait for international linguists to discuss the issue. Second, your assertion that Serbo-Croatian is one of the varieties of Shtokavian is false. The reverse is true. Linguists outside the Balkans use the term "Serbo-Croatian" to refer to all non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects, so Shtokavian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian, not the other way around. Serbo-Croatian is often called Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, but not uniformly. In Wikipedia, the consensus is to use "Serbo-Croatian" since that is a term of long-standing use. Until you have built a WP:CONSENSUS here among Wikipedia editors based on international linguistic scholarship and not just a Croatian POV, then you are prohibited by WP:BRD from continually reinserting the objectionable material. --Taivo (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

1 - Yes, you are correct Croatian linguists are in general nationalist and not neutral, in fact that is exactly the reason why the most nationalist ones tend to group Chakavian within the Serbo-Croatian family, in order to pursue territorial claims. The most neutral Croatian linguists, respected academically for their work also abroad, like Josip Silic (as stated, he standardised Serbo-Croatian himself), and Sjezana Kordic, never claimed anything else than Chakavski being a language in its own right. Which, to be blunt to you, is also completely obvious to anybody that speaks it, as Shtokavski and Chakavian truly are almost in their entirety unintelligible tongues to each other. 2 - I never have asserted Shtokavian and Serbo-Croatian to be sub-groups of each other. They are in fact exactly the same tongue. You can use the name interchangeably. The name is a political matter, the fact is Shotokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian are different languages. There is more difference between Shtokavian and Chakavian than there is between Spanish and Italian. Why Kajkavian is already so independent and recognised within Croatia itself, is also because the associations promoting it are politically more powerful than the ones defending Chakavian, which are more divided and less organised in general. Anyway, you will see, as many initiatives are being brought on to safeguard the language you will anyway have to edit this page in the direction I did now, sooner or later. I was making a favour to everyone by bringing knowledge forward now, being that I am academically informed (and motivated). Marintu (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You still don't understand the international meaning of "Serbo-Croatian". It is not synonymous with "Shtokavian". It is a cover term for all non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects/languages. Ethnologue, for example, lists it as an inclusive "macrolanguage". Until non-Croatian linguists begin to accept the status of Chakavian as separate from Serbo-Croatian (if they ever do), then you will have to wait on your edits. Glottologue, for example, lists Chakavian as a dialect of Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but feel you do not understand well the fact there is absolutely no consensus here like you state, being that many Croatian linguists, ie academics and even popular ones at that have always considered Chakavian separate, even early historic linguists. And they underline this in all their publications. I am a linguist outside of Croatia so I guess I have a slight understanding of how linguistics work. Would you mind confuting some of my references and those linguists? Marintu (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind finding sources that are not Croatian? I, too, am a professional linguist and am well aware of the political agenda that underlies the work of most Croatian linguists whether consciously or subconsciously. For the same reason, we here at Wikipedia don't just take the word of Serbian and Bosnian linguists (or Macedonian and Bulgarian linguists) when dealing with issues of the South Slavic languages/dialects. I have since found a source or two that says, basically, "[Serbo-Croatian] has three dialects, Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian, but there is difficulty for them to understand each other and some linguists might call them separate languages because of it." However, none of those sources actually call Chakavian a separate language and they all still include it as a dialect of Serbo-Croatian. So until there are actual non-Croatian sources that separate Chakavian, Wikipedia is bound by what reliable sources say. Kajkavian used to be considered a dialect of Serbo-Croatian as well, but non-Croatian sources have very recently treated it as a separate language--so Wikipedia followed suit. Chakavian might or might not be far behind, but Wikipedia must wait for now. --Taivo (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent international developments now go into this direction:

- Chakavian has been recognized as an independent language by the most academically referenced journal in the field of language classification Ethnologue https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ckm / https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/ckm

- It has been also assigned its own ISO language code by the linguists working for the International Standardization Organization: https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/ckm

- Aside from Silić, which is indeed the most referenced and respected contemporary linguist in Croatia also Joško Božanić, the Chakavian linguistic most recognized in Croatia and the main editor of the only academic journal dedicated to the study and research of Chakavian confirmed that Chakavian cannot be considered a dialect but a language in its own merit if scientifically acceptable classification methods are followed.

- Of the same opinion was the greatest Croatian writer and kroatist Miroslav Krleža who writes: “Za volju političkog i kulturnog jedinstva, zbog dalekovidne utilitarističke perspektive bratstva s ostalim narodima od Istre [...] do Bugarske, odreći se svoje vlastite književne prošlosti i tradicije, svoga jezika i svoga imena, bila je to smionost samozatajna koju je mogao da nadahne samo bezazleni idealizam bez ikakvih skrivenih misli i kombinacija.” (see Krležijana, sv. 1., published by Leksikografski zavod ‘Miroslav Krleža’, Zagreb, 1993., page 403)

It's very bad when users focused on political activism like @Miki Filigranski keep undoing a linguistic article to fit their personal political views.

I suggest that the article starts at the very least with a "Chakavian is a language or regiolect of Croatia..." until there is more consenzus also within Croatia. SapientiaLinguistica (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

SapientiaLinguistica, I would advise you to stay away from WP:PERSONAL attacks. As for Chakavian, that's not the case, you do not understand the topic and meaning of ISO at all. Silić and Božanić are not even close the most referenced and respected contemporary Croatian linguists or most recognized in Croatia and else, and neither Miroslav Krleža was the greatest Croatian writer and Kroatist - pure nonsense, you are advocating for the recognition of Chakavian as an official language ignoring the complexity of very origin and definition of Chakavian and whole topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY place. The three dialects are provisory names and definitions invented and still used by linguists for practical reasons. They never were, are not nor ever will be languages in the proper sense. Chakavian's dialect definition is much more complex than Kajkavian and Shtokavian, it is impossible to reconstruct Proto-Chakavian nor exist common traits/isogloss to surely define and differentiate it from the other two dialects. As for Silić, he had various opinions, one of which was a structuralist theorization (not accepted) that these three dialects represent three different languages and systems with standards but Croatian or of Croatian (supra)language. As for recognition, it is part of the broader worldwide trend of rising dialects to the level of languages (for various reasons), there was no recognition merely change in the catalog nomenclature (something the public and laics don't know anything about and easily misinterpret). It was suggested by an American linguist who is not well known, not representing nor supported by the Croatian linguistic community, and to be noted, for the suggestion referenced to the previous suggestion he had done for Kajkavian on behalf of a marginal Croatian group of people (led by Mario Jembrih; https://kajkavski-jezik.eu/) who claim that Kajkavian "language" is historically and ethnically not Croatian and existence of "Kajkavian nation". It is utterly unprofessional and unscientific. Please find international sources which mention or claim that Chakavian is a language at Google Books, even Britannica mentions it as a dialect. I am repeating again, there's nothing "official" about it nor ISO means what you imply.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody attacked you personally. It is a matter of fact that you have a personal view and beef on this topic. You are proving this by copy-pasting the very unscientific and unacademic opinions of the Croatian far-right and their (non-academics, self-proclaimed) linguists Viktor Matić and Domagoj Vidović.

Your opinions expressed here above are not supported by academics internationally (ISO and Ethnologue review the current academic sources before recognizing a language) and in part even locally as my references above prove. You are attacking all messengers that do not fit your POV (the ISO organization, Ethnologue, Kirk Miller, SIL International, Silić and Božanić) by minimizing heavily their importance, because you do not like their conclusions. In other words, you are trying to denigrate the sources whose thought you do not like on a ad personam basis. It thus appears crystal clear you are not primarily here to further scientific purity in this article, but to hold the article hostage of certain a priori political views. These do not match the current ongoing scientific debate, and the references you put here do not confute in any way or form my references above or the fact there is no full consensus between croatian linguists. Your sources are merely older and do not yet take into account the last 10 years of scientific debate or even less the debate that is ongoing in these past months within Croatia.

The language was identified as such by Ethnologue and by the linguists working for the ISO organization, whose level of authority anybody can easily verify via the two Wikipedia links I provided. Silić's academic authority is easily verifiable by anyone through a google search and Božanićs authority is given by the fact that he is for 30 years the director of the only scientific and scientifically recognized journal dedicated to the study of the Chakavian language.

Hence, I repeat my suggestion, the article should start with a phrasing that takes into account both sides of the current scientific debate, Miki Filigranski should kindly refrain from adapting the article to his personal views with activist passion. SapientiaLinguistica (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am warning you for the second time to stop making personal attacks and to stop commenting on editors. The cited sources are not part of the Croatian far-right, D. Vidović is a notable modern Croatian linguist, while V. Matić doesn't claim anywhere to be a linguist, he is an expert on political matters to which all the fuss is related. Such exceptional and ridiculous claims need exceptional evidence and there's none to back it up. You are making things up and by doing so only making things worse for your contribution to be accepted by other editors. I am warning you again that you are misinterpreting the scientic body of knowledge about the topic and what you read in the media news. Your claims are word-to-word copy-pasting viewpoint of some misinformed semi-journalists in the media. Like the media claims, you show almost no knowledge and understanding of the topic. Expert linguists who are engaged in the scientific debate do not agree anyhow with such a viewpoint. Wikipedia is edited citing reliable sources, not someone's personal viewpoint. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If Vidović and Matić are not far right why do they publish only on far-right outlets? They are definitely near to the Croatian far-right and this is easily verifable by seeing where they publish. Moreover, Vidović is not a "notable modern Croatian linguist", he is a linguist only in the most wider possible sense because academically he is an etymologist-onomastics researcher, very active on far-right portals and even on a separatist Bosnian-Croatian portal. A mere google search shows he is collaborating with a plethora of far-right leaning portals. Neither of the two has published in international journals.

Again, the only thing I have been suggesting here is that both sides of the debate should be taken into account for the basis of the article, while you seem to want to impose the cancelation of one side completely (not accusing you, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Ultimately, even if we want to consider Vidović and Matić relevant sources, why should we make their viewpoints the basis for this Wikipedia article and why should we ignore completely ex-toto what Silić (now this really is a notable linguist and kroatist and nobody can confute this in any way or form as he is generally acclaimed as such*), Božanić, SIL International, Ethnologue and also the ISO (Geneva-based) linguists say? Kindly provide a reasonable and logical explanation.

• About Silić notability and relevance please see how his persona is introduced by all national media:

https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/325494

https://www.nacional.hr/umro-istaknuti-hrvatski-jezikoslovac-josip-silic/

https://www.novilist.hr/ostalo/kultura/knjizevnost/najveci-zivuci-lingvist-josip-silic-predlozio-sam-uvodenje-cakavskog-u-skole/

https://www.tportal.hr/kultura/clanak/preminuo-istaknuti-hrvatski-jezikoslovac-josip-silic-20190228

https://www.jutarnji.hr/kultura/knjizevnost/umro-istaknuti-hrvatski-jezikoslovac-josip-silic-autor-je-brojnih-udzbenika-gramatika-i-pravopisa-te-suautor-hrvatskoga-racunalnog-pravopisa-8434637

https://www.vecernji.hr/kultura/umro-istaknuti-hrvatski-jezikoslovac-josip-silic-1303966 SapientiaLinguistica (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM and plesase stop making personal attacks on people, including scientists, with association fallacies. You are making erroneous and baseless claims. I am warning you, again, that you do not understand the topic in whatever sense - including the meaning of the word "language" - at all. Opinion of other expert linguists, including Božanić, have been cited as well. I am not continuing this discussion of demagogue advocacy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The user above me is heavily manipulating this article to fit preconceived political views and with the specific intent not to represent in a neutral or even remotely fair way the current scientific and public debate on the topic.

The excerpt he inserted in the article about Božanić goes completely against his point of view which can be found here in its fulness: https://soundcloud.com/gkmm/predavanje-prof-joska-bozanica-u-gkmm-u-10-02-2023 (starting from the 21st minute)

He clearly extrapolated Božanić's words in a selective and manipulative way so to further his own narrative.

He also describes in the article what is a major Croatian linguist (as per my above links, even sometimes publicly hailed as the greatest Croatian linguist) Josip Silić as a supposed nationalist pundit (of what nation? This thought doesn't make any sense, because Chakavian speakers are 100% croats - this shows the author doesn't even understand the meaning of the word "nationalist"). At the same time in the text he hails an etymologist publishing continuously for extreme right outlets (Vidović) and a pure amateur (Matić) as very serious sources, which he presents as more relevant than the academic ones cited above.

I will add further relevant sources to try to show that the thesis of Chakavian being an independent language is more widely supported than presented by Miki Filigranski in his heavy recent editing and that this user is not representing the real state of affairs in the public debate at the least:

- University of Zagreb linguistics professor, a major authority in the field of standard language-local languages topcs, Krešimir Mićanović: https://www.hrvatskiplus.org/article.php?id=1828&naslov=mjesto-standardologije-u-jezikoslovnoj-kroatistici

- Internationally acclaimed professor Snježana Kordić, with whom I personally do not completely agree but do in regard to her opinion about the Chakavian-Shtokavian relationship: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/101381

- Even Croatian linguist-dialectologist Josip Lisac sometimes treats Chakavian as a language of its own: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/171358

- If we add to this discussion non-academic or amateur profiles like Vidović and Matić we should also add dialectologist and etimologist Siniša Vuković who (like Vidović and Matić) is not a professor but does publish in academically relevant journals as the aforementioned scientific journal Čakavska Rič: https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/dalmacija/dalmacija-ima-pravo-na-cakavski-jezik-94496

Please mods stop this user's vandalization attempts. This article needs to reflect both sides of the debate in a neutral and respectful way to both sides and not be a victim of far/right and unacademic political views.SapientiaLinguistica (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks on both editor and scientists (!) and edit warring. I am editing according scientific, academic and reliable sources! You won't find consensus with such behavior and making WP:POINT edit removing one side ("dialect") of the supposed "debate" (as well removing content which was already in your old revision, not mine). You are constantly removing one side of the "debate" and claim as if the "language" POV is majority opinion - it is not at all and never was (WP:WEIGHT). This is highly disruptive behavior. Also, not every opinion and point of view is valid and accepted by the academic community - Silić's viewpoint, which is related to by far more complex theorization than you understand, is not accepted by fellow linguists. It is common to hear by experts on Croatian language and Chakavian that such viewpoints on Chakavian are highly misunderstanding the Chakavian dialect, simplying and ignoring its diversity, differences and very definition of a dialect. I don't want to continue this nonsensical discussion with someone who is WP:NOTLISTENING and doesn't have a clue about the topic besides reading misinformation in the news media. Am currently proof-reading the mentioned references and already finding scientific criticism of such a viewpoint or complete misunderstanding of the topic. I will give you intermediate solution in the next 24h to be mentioned in the LEAD "dialect or language", and nothing further than that - if you stop with personal attacks and edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Misleading use of "Serbo-Croatian" label

It seems that we have some serious problems in several segments this article, particularly regarding the use of "Serbo-Croatian" label. Some of those problems are caused by the innate ambiguity of that term, while others are created by inaccurate, anachronistic or misleading use of the same term as a linguistic label. Some of the biggest problems can bee seen in the history section. For example, article does not mention some basic facts of crucial importance. There is no mention of the fact that in Čakavian textual monuments, dating from the middle ages and up to the modern times, the language of Čakavian speakers is by themselves called Croatian (archaic autonym: horvatski). In other words, Čakavian is the "Old-Croatian language". But, for some reason, this article fails to present that crucial fact, and also suppresses the classification of Čakavian as a variant of Croatian language, while promoting the artificial "Serbo-Craotian" label, coined in the 19th century by some linguists. That is very misleading, because such anachronistic use of "Serbo-Croatian" label in segments on medieval and early modern history is factually inaccurate. It is clear that there can be no justification for current suppression of authentic Croatian label, and its replacement with "Serbo-Craotian", since that artificial term, coined in the 19th century, has nothing to do with linguistic reality of earlier historical periods. Unfortunately, all those things are just the tip of an iceberg. Current article on the Serbo-Croatian "language" is filled with similar problems, and same goes for all articles on related languages. Sorabino (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The article follows the broad consensus of fact described by linguists in the majority of reliable sources concerning Serbo-Croatan (aka, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian), for example, Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001), etc. Whether Chakavian is a variety of Croatian (which itself is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian) or a separate dialect of Serbo-Croatian outside Croatian is a mixed issue among linguists, but that Serbo-Croatian is the language that unites the dialects of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian is without serious challenge in the linguistic community (outside the nationalist circles of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, that is). --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not true. Term "Serbo-Craotian" has several different meanings, and it is not used in modern linguistics as a designation for an individual language, on the contrary - it is commonly used just as one of several technical designations for a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Croatian, Bosniac, Montenegrin and Serbian. That linguistic consensus is reflected in official ISO classification, that recognizes term "Serbo-Croatian" only as designation for a macrolanguage. Indiviadual Serbo-Craotian "language" does not exist. Sorabino (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You simply don't know what you're talking about. 1) You overplay the ISO labels. Actual linguists, not the armchair novices like yourself, do not put very much weight on ISO labels other than to use them as cataloguing nomenclature. We all know that the ISO is more subject to the whims of politics (such as that which you practice) than it is to rigorous linguistic methodology. Your assertion that ISO 639-3 represents a "linguistic consensus" simply shows your ignorance of linguistics and of the nature of the ISO standard. If you made such a comment in the presence of linguists, you'd be laughed out of the room. For example, the ISO system lists Lushootseed, Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish as separate languages with individual codes. But it is well-known that "Lushootseed" is the name of the language (see Bates et al. 1994, Mithun 1999, etc.) and Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish are dialects of that language. It is exactly parallel to the Serbo-Croatian [hbs], Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin situation--a language with dialects, and each dialect has a separate ISO designation. Yet Lushootseed is listed as a "language", not a "macrolanguage" for political reasons, not linguistic ones. The same is true of the Serbo-Croatian dialect cluster--the four dialects are listed as separate languages for political reasons, not linguistic ones. Linguists therefore do not use the ISO listing as a reliable linguistic classification or as a scientifically rigorous listing of the world's well-defined languages. And there is nothing "official" about it. It is an industry standard that is useful for library cataloguing, but nothing else. There is no requirement that linguists even pay attention to it. In the International Journal of American Linguistics, for example, its use behind the first instance of a language's name in an article is entirely optional. One article might reference the abbreviations, the next might not. Your ignorance of the science shows in your insistence that it is somehow an important source of scientific rigor. 2) Of course you ignore all the references that I have provided here and elsewhere that show that actual linguists treat Serbo-Croatian (or Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian or Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian or whatever you want to call it) as a single language with Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin treated as dialects of that language: Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000, vol. 2, pg. 445), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001, pg. 444), etc. It is not "common knowledge" as you so blithely assert based on a single, solitary source that isn't considered a very good source among actual linguists (which you are clearly not). --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting all those sources. Not a single one of those sources state that "Serbo-Croatian" is an individual language. You are very well aware of that, and that is why are avoiding that linguistic term, replacing it with colloquial term single language in order to blur this discussion. There is a clear distinction between basic linguistic terms, like individual language, and pluricentric language. Modern linguists are using term "Serbo-Croatian" either as a designation for a particular pluricentric language, or as a technical term for a particular linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisted of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Those are common facts. You did not address a single argument on the anachronistic use of "Serbo-Craotian" label in history section of this article. Sorabino (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They all label Serbo-Croatian as a "single language/individual language" (the terms are identical in meaning). I have written elsewhere (Talk:Croatian language) about your ignorance of the meaning of "pluricentric". It doesn't not mean "different languages", but "different national standards within ONE language". You simply don't know much about the subject and are projecting your patriotism onto a linguistic discussion where you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the linguistic terms. This is not the appropriate article to address the political problems with the most common label--Serbo-Croatian--for the single language that comprises Croatian, Serbian, etc. That issue is addressed at Serbo-Croatian. --Taivo (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Political accusation without factual basis

I quote from the article: "Josip Silić, for example, argued that Chakavian is not a dialect of Croatian language but a one of three Croatian linguistic systems, a language on its own but without standard, which was met with criticism. Snježana Kordić's similar opinion in Jezik i nacionalizam (2010) was met with criticism for having analogies with Greater Serbian viewpoint. At the suggestion of American linguist Kirk Miller in 2019, the Chakavian dialect was recognized by SIL International as a living language with its own ISO 639-3 code – ckm in 2020."

The sentence about the Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić should be deleted because it contains a political accusation without a factual basis. In the book Language and Nationalism, Kordić points out that a nation does not have to coincide with a language and that different nations can speak the same language, and that Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are different nations even though they speak one polycentric language (pp. 169-172). This is the complete opposite of the Greater Serbian claim that everyone who speaks the same language is a Serb. Kordić also points out that the state does not have to coincide with the language (p. 172-173), and that the standard language of Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins has become a typical polycentric language precisely because it is spoken in several states (p. 78). This is also the complete opposite of the Greater Serbian idea of one big state of Serbia.

If a linguist is accused of the Greater Serbian viewpoint just because he/she notes that the differences between Chakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian are greater than within standard Štokavian, then according to that logic Croatian linguists Josip Silić, Stjepan Babić, Dalibor Brozović, Dubravko Škiljan and American linguist Kirk Miller, etc. also express the Greater Serbian viewpoint.

By the way, in the book, Kordić criticizes Serbian linguistic nationalism: "Serbian variant is not a "language" and Croatian is not a "variant" of that language. Anyone who presents some kind of variant model in which Serbian functions as a superior entity falsifies the sociolinguistic theory of variants and manifests linguistic nationalism in the form of Serbocentrism". (p. 143) --Darigon Jr. (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is reliable source and criticism, not a political accusation. As is explained in the source, Kordić in her tentatively Yugoslavic "neutral" argumentation about dialect groups, non-Croatian identity of Dubrovnik, lexicons, giving same weight to Croatian and Serbian side of argumentation, controversial stance that Croats basically should not exist as a nation i.e. don't have a national language because speak three different "languages" (because she perceives three invented dialect groups as separate languages) - naively falls right into the Greater Serbian linguistic argumentation. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone were to write that Darwin claims in his book that man originated on Mars, that text could not have priority over what is actually written in Darwin's book. It is the same in this case. Your source is a review of Snježana Kordić's book "Language and Nationalism". It means that what is written in Kordić's book has priority.

For example, what you stated now referring to "as is explained in the source", is not so in the book:

1) The book does not provide an argumentation about non-Croatian identity of Dubrovnik, but talks about the period up to the 16th century, when today's nations had not yet been formed. It says in the book that at that time "the self-consciousness of the Republic of Dubrovnik and its citizens was neither Serbian nor Croatian. By means of these remarks, of course, one does not want to dispute that today's inhabitants of Slavonia, the former civil Croatia, Dubrovnik, etc. most of them belong to the Croatian people, the Croatian nation." (p. 264)

The book also explains why in the 16th century one cannot speak of either the Croatian or the Serbian nation: "It is known that the first European nation, France, was created only at the end of the 18th century, and that the process of nation-building began in Europe after that." (p. 208)

2) In the book there is no controversial stance that Croats basically should not exist as a nation. On the contrary, the book says the opposite several times:

"A common language does not threaten the existence of separate national states: It should be emphasized that the existence of a common Serbo-Croatian language does not call into question the existence of four nations or four independent states, nor does it threaten national identities. After all, it is enough to see examples of numerous countries in the world that speak the same language as some other countries." (p. 170)

"In the South Slavic area, state borders did not and do not coincide with linguistic ones, neither at the dialectal level (e.g. Kajkavian is in Croatia and in Slovenia), nor at the standard level (Stokavian is the standard in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro). The non-coincidence of language borders with state borders does not affect the independence of states. Furthermore, no one outside its borders has the right to interfere with the language of a country. So the fact that Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins speak the same language has no political consequences: states and nations exist regardless of whether they speak the same language as other nations in other states." (p. 173)

I don't know if you are aware, but you equate nation and language when you say "controversial stance that Croats basically should not exist as a nation i.e. don't have a national language". The book says about it: "Such an attitude - that only if there is a separate language, there is also a separate nation - is not correct, which is illustrated by the examples of numerous nations that speak the same language as some other nations, for example the American nation, Australian, Canadian, Swiss, Austrian, etc." (p. 169)

Finally, let me say that if someone were to write that Salman Rushdie is Satan, it could not result in Wikipedia saying that he is Satan. I have shown that it is unfounded to claim that Kordić is expressing Greater Serbian ideas. Such an accusation in Croatia means that she is the number one enemy of the state. Due to such an accusation, Kordić received death threats, which was noted by various newspapers, an Austrian journalist wrote in the Frankfurter Rundschau that Kordić is hiding where she lives because of this. As reported by Jutarnji list, T-portal and KIC (see min. 2:10), her car was demolished in front of her apartment in Zagreb and she moved to an unknown address. Should Wikipedia support the persecution of a living person by spreading false claims about her work? --Darigon Jr. (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, as relied on the critical review and did not check Kordic's work myself (neither knew about her private life issues), will take your commentary & citations for granted and make a self-revert, anyway, the sentence in question is not bringing anything substantially different and relevant to the section. However, the reliable critical review's viewpoint and what happaned to her in Croatia due to local overreaction over false or exaggerated claims is relevant and notable enough for citation in her own article (if isn't already).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)