From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Shtokavian dialect = Serbian language"[edit]

Shtokavian dialect was exclusively and solely used by Serbian population all over Balkan peninsula. From 1850.[[1]]. Croats and Slovenes (using kajkavian and chakavian dialect) have agreed to use Shtokavian as grammatical reference. It is a pure BS to even mention so called "Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin" as part of shotkavian dialect. If people from those countries speak with Shtokavian they can speak only and only Serbian. Cut the crap


This article does not explain clearly the rationale behind the sorting of Shtokavian dialects into Old- and Neo-Shtokavian categories. There doesn't seem to be a geographical or historical origin to this distinction explained. As someone who studied Shtokavian in college, I have to say I couldn't tell you what the difference is. If someone with expertise could put this crucial information in the intro paragraph, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the neo-štokavian retraction/shift, where all non-initial accents went back one syllable and became "rising" and where all initial accents stayed where they were and became "falling"? (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I finally found some time to add the basic information, in Shtokavian accentuation section. No such user (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Shtokavian dialect"[edit]

Is this a dialect or is it a language? Never mind the political stigmatization of the true definition of a language in former-yugoslav countries (Mon, BiH, Cro, Srb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is normally conceived as the most important dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language. However, the mutual intelligibility between the Serbo-Croatian dialects is apparently rather low, which would make the dialects actually distinct languages. That said, I should add that the national standard languages are all based on the same subdialect and are easily mutually intelligible and hence part of the same language. --JorisvS (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no dividing line between the two. I think if people reported on Shto, Cha, and Kaj as separate languages, no-one would bat an eyelash. But AFAICT they're not so different they'd have to be different languages either – but then, that's true for most Slavic languages. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


The word accent when used for Slavic languages usually never refers to Accent (sociolinguistics) but almost always to Accent (phonetics). So referring to Ijekavian/Ekavian forms as "accents" is a bit misleading. Furthermore, article confusingly uses the term in both senses. The former usage does make sense in the context of English which uses etymological orthography, but not in Serbo-Croatian which uses phonological. mleko and mlijeko are two different words, not two different "accents" of some single, underlying word. The usual term for Ijekavian/Ekavian/Ikavian distinction is pronunciation (izgovor in SC). I already replaced usages of accent to pronunciation in some articles, but many more (like this one) continue to use it. I'm posting this here for notification purposes and to encourage others to rectify such usages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that "pronunciation" does not capture the distinction. Saying that mleko and mlijeko are two different "pronunciations" is like saying "often" and "offen" are two different pronunciations: There's no implication that they correspond to other words in the language. We're not talking about different pronunciations of random words, but of a systemic difference of pronunciation of all words – in other words, of accents. If the two uses of the word are confusing, then we should reword it so it's not confusing. — kwami (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Yes but that is the terminology. The word pronunciation has special meaning when dealing with Serbo-Croatian - e.g. see here. So the division in terms of Western/Eastern varieties of Serbo-Croatian, or Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian varieties that exists today is orthogonal to the division Ijekavian/Ekavian/Ikavian (each of the variants could have either "pronunciation" in theory). Although, explaining this special meaning of the term pronunciation in every single article that uses it would be cumbersome. I'd rather that we not use the term accent due its 1) ambiguity as per above 2) complete lack of use in scholarship when referring to Ijekavian/Ekavian/Ikavian forms of SC. I'm not sure what to do :/ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's jargon, and we should avoid unnecessary jargon. It's not even general linguistic jargon, which would at least be consistent between articles. You're right: placing a note at the top of every SC article explaining that when we use the word "pronunciation", we don't actually mean pronunciation, is not helpful for a general-use encyclopedia. "Accent" is correct, so there's no problem with that as long as we're clear which of the two uses we intend. If you can think of another term, let's hear it! — kwami (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

sän and dän instead of san and dan[edit]

What is the "ä" referring to? Is it IPA? Is it æ? Is it this? It's not clear at all. Author - please clarify and remove reference to (sound) "between e and a" because that's not clear either. (E and A in which language? What is the a? A as in dark? law? cat?)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastapasha (talkcontribs) 01:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is [æ] indeed. Peter238 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Asked here: Unfortunately, it is not properly sourced, so it is best removed. The "SDZ" source is actually "Kašić, Zorka. "Govor Konavala", Srpski dijalektološki zbornik, XLI/1995, str. 241-395.", but it likely confirms only the subsequent sentence, on pronunciation of /ʝ/ in the Dubrovnik area.
Judging on hr:Bokeljsko perojski dijalekt, also unsourced (but apparently written by someone with access to literature), Peter238 is probably right, as it describes refleks slabog poluglasa kao otvoreno e, uz mjestimično čuvanje poluglasa for a Boka Kotorska dialect and otvoreno e dominantantni refleks poluglasa, s time da je u nenaglašenim slogovima otvorenost manja for dijalect of Montenegrin settlers in Peroj, Istria. No such user (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)