Talk:Gaj's Latin alphabet/Archive 1

Archive 1

name

On 17:37, 9 April 2007, User:Методије moved Croatian alphabet to Gaj's Latin alphabet: This is a much more neutral title than "Croatian alphabet", as this is used in Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin as well.

While I understand that it is certainly an alphabet completely integral to all those other languages, I wonder if we are taking the neutrality thing too far here. I assumed that Gaj was creating the alphabet for Croatian use, so it's not illogical to call it the Croatian alphabet. Obviously it's not *only* Croatian alphabet today, but that is supposed to be its origin.

Another aspect is that it's not actually Gaj's complete work, if Đuro Daničić added the letter Đ. Furthermore, was Daničić adding the letter to be used in Croatian, or in Serbian, or both? That aspect also affects the original name.

What exactly do the history books say about this? --Joy [shallot] 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the move at the time as well, and reluctantly accepted it. At the time, there were separate Croatian alphabet, Bosnian alphabet, and South Slavic Latinic transliterations (strangely, no one got the idea to create Serbian Latin alphabet), so he did a good thing to consolidate them. Now, the question of correct naming of the article is difficult; whatever short title one puts, someone will complain that it's not only Croatian, or that Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist, or that Montenegrins are unhappy or... I'm generally against overt political correctness, but if the current title solves the issue, let it be (at least it has connection with occasionaly used name gajica), and I'd really dislike an unwieldy one ("Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin alphabet" ?). The article still emphasizes the Croatian origins of the alphabet, so I'm inclined to put the matter to rest. Duja► 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

usage

as someone who has absolutely no knowledge on this matter and looking for some answers on wiki, I was surprised to find that neither this article nor the Serbian Cyrillic one had any mention of how widespread the usage of either alphabet is. Can someone add this information, preferably with some references? Thanks! —lensovet–talk – 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's as widespread as the usage of the languages it is used in, and those are linked. Does that really need clarifying? --Joy [shallot]

Article name (Which apostrophe?)

For the sake of not turning this into a revert war -- which title should be used, "Gaj’s Latin alphabet" or "Gaj's Latin alphabet"? It was at the second title until just yesterday, when it was moved to the first title, and no reason (other than personal preference) was given, even when I asked at User:Crissov's talk page. Now that the article has been moved, every article that links here comes through a redirect, as compared to previously, when half the articles linked directly. I see no purpose in forcing a redirect to be used when it's so obviously unnecessary, nor do I see why someone's time (even if it is a bot's, as proposed by Crissov) should be wasted by going through articles to fix the redirect. As far as the two versions of apostrophe are concerned, I really don't care which one is used, but in this case, especially when considering the redirects, I think it should stick with the original. I'd move it back myself, but as I mentioned at the beginning, I don't want to create an edit war, so I'm bringing it up here in the hopes of getting some more opinions one way or the other. -Bbik^★ 03:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not really inconvenient at all to have redirects. I'm in favor of ' over ’ anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian et al

1. 10:14, 7 June 2010 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) (10,127 bytes) (Undid revision 366515468 by Joy (talk)--same words, just without implying this is the Croatian alphabet) (rollback | undo)
2. 09:37, 7 June 2010 Joy (talk | contribs | block) (10,310 bytes) (please do not use the controversial wording everywhere, thank you, Undid revision 366461263 by Kwamikagami (talk)) (undo)
3. 02:30, 7 June 2010 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) (10,127 bytes) (wording

So this time the article trended into the uncharted waters of immediate Serbo-Croatian references, and even further away from its original title, Croatian alphabet, yet my request (above) for explanation is still unanswered. Indeed now I notice that we have a prior mishmash in the intro with Gaj's nationality being referenced before his name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Gay, aka Ljudevit Gaj, was the least Croat by his ethnicity (and Croatian nationality didn't exist at that time because there was no Croatian state). This "Croatian alphabet" is the same alphabet used for Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin, the same letters representing the same sounds. When it was originally created, it was most definitely not intended for a separate Croatian language. I don't see how wording is controversial: do you dispute the statement that B/C/S(/M) are national standards of one language, for all practical purposes called and referred to as Serbo-Croatian ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you reckon it was not "intended for a separate Croatian language" - if there was no need or wanting for any such thing, then why use Latin when Karadžić's new Cyrillic was already there? This is haggling over the meaning of the words "title", "origin" and "separate"... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And the fact that these two match 1:1 is by a historical accident? Not at all. It was the only possible way to establish common literary language on a singular dialect - contemporary Croatians would definitely not embrace "Orthodox" Cyrillic script en masse, inasmuch as contemporary Serbians would not embrace "Catholic" Latin script. Ludwig Gay had nothing but the noblest intentions in putting aside spoken language differences and laying the groundwork for the common literary traditions of South Slavic people. Petty exclusionary nationalism was not his game of choice. Today we enjoy the fruits of his labor. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not, but you can't ignore the simple fact that Gaj was a leader of an explicitly Illyrian movement, yet he named his language book horvatsko-slavensko. He certainly wasn't a petty exclusionary nationalist, but he still explicitly used the Croatian national name. And the usage didn't seem be only as a toponym, what with the Kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia, because I don't believe that second word referred to Slavonia but generally to Slavic. So the stance on the naming of the alphabet has to be neutral but at least slightly more Croatian than not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which, in retrospect, is also achieved by attributing it to Gaj in particular, so what I'm really trying to preempt here is an attempt to move it to, say, Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet. :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea, Joy, even more because this Serbo-Croatian alphabet isn't the same as Gaj's alpabet introduced in 1830 Primer of Croatian-Slavonian orthography, but in fact is a hybrid between Gaj's 1830 alphabet, and Đura Daničić's 1880 alphabet, different from the each one taken separately. There is a difference between Latin alphabets in Serbo-Croatian used in different times. Ever since 1880 and later, it is Gaj-Daničić's alphabet that is used, not Gaj's. 79.101.148.204 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Gaj's Croatian"

I think this article needs a serious revision. First, it is not Gaj's Latin alphabet, but Gaj-Daničić's Latin alphabet, Gaj being a Croat, and Daničić being a Serb, devised for the purpose of Serbian/Croatian language, which was at the time considered as one language by both Serbian and Croatian authors. Today, the idea that Serbian and Croatian languages should be defined as different standards doesn't imply that former 'Serbo-Croatian' Latin alphabet is only Croatian alphabet, but both Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian for that matter). In Serbian, it is one of the two standard alphabets alongside Cyrillic, Cyrillic being predominant in country administration, and Latin in literature, press and everyday use. 178.223.68.92 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaj'Daničić's aphabet

There is a difference between the two. Gaj introduced letters Č, Ć, Š, Ž and digraphs Dž, Dj, Lj, Nj into standard Latin alphabet in his 1830 book, and that makes Gaj's alphabet. In 1880, Daničić introduced letters Ġ, Đ, Ļ, Ń, as substitutes for digraphs Dž, Dj, Lj, Nj. Modern Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet (today Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) is a hybrid of the two, as Gaj's digraph Dj is replaced by Daničić's solution Đ. There is Gaj's alphabet, there is Daničić's alphabet, and there is this hybrid that is in use for over a century. The difference between Gaj's and Gaj-Daničić's alphabet is small, but still a significant one: instead of Gaj's digraph Dj, Daničić's letter Đ is used. Gaj's alphabet proscribes Djurdjevdan (St. George's Day), and Gaj-Daničić's Đurđevdan, as in use today. 79.101.148.204 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unless you provide an actual reference for it, this name "Gaj-Daničić alphabet" is just original research. As far as I'm aware, the local name gajica exists, for which "Gaj's Latin alphabet" is a (mostly) literal translation; Đuro Daničić is not credited in the alphabet's name. BTW it would be good if you registered a single account so that it's easier to follow who exactly said what. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaj's alphabet doesn't have letter Đ, but uses digraph Dj instead. Gaj's alphabet is the alphabet introduced in 1830, and that alphabet isn't in use. If we are to nitpick, Vuk Karadžić introduced his Latin alphabet in 1818. and Gaj's 1830. alphabet differs from it in only 4 letters (Č, Ć, Š, and Ž instead of Vuk's Cs, Ch, Sc, and X). If the name Gaj-Daničić's alphabet is problematic, perhaps your idea of Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet may be the best. The problem is that there is Gaj's alphabet and there is Daničić's alphabet, while modern Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet is neither, but a combination of the two. 109.92.78.71 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)